( 1 ) RULE. Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor, waives service of rule.

( 2 ) THE present anticipatory bail application has been preferred by the petitioner in connection with C. R. No. I-196 of 2003 of Vadodara City Police Station.

( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Y. N. Oza, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

( 4 ) IT may be recorded that the very petitioner had earlier preferred anticipatory bail application before this Court, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 9352 of 2003 and the same came to be rejected by this Court as per decision dated 19. 11. 2003. This Court, in the said decision, at paragraphs 6 and 7, observed as under:-". 6 having considered the above, I am of the view that so far as the considerations for anticipatory bail are concerned, it would be profitable to refer to the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of "bharat Chaudhary and Another v. State of Bihar and Anr. " reported in 2003 (8) SCC. 77. The Apex has observed at para 7 as under:"7. THE object of section 438 is to prevent undue harassment of the accused persons by pre-trial arrest and detention. The fact, that a court has either taken cognizance of the complaint or the investigating agency has filed a charge-sheet, would not by itself, in our opinion, prevent the courts concerned from granting anticipatory bail in appropriate cases. The gravity of the offence is an important factor to be taken into consideration while granting such anticipatory bail so also the need for custodial interrogation, but these are only factors that must be borne in mind by the courts concerned while entertaining a petition for grant of anticipatory bail and the fact of taking cognizance or filing of a charge sheet cannot by itself be construed as a prohibition against the grant of anticipatory bail. :. 7. IF the matter is examined accordingly, at this stage, it does transpire that Kanaiyalal, as per the complaint, is abducted by the petitioner No. 1 and till today Kanaiyalal is not traced by the police. It may be that the Police, during the course of investigation, may require custodial interrogation, considering the seriousness of the offence of abduction of the brother of the complainant; I am of the view that if the anticipatory bail is granted, more particularly qua petitioner No. 1 at this stage, it may hamper the investigation and the investigating machinery will not be in a position to proceed further with the investigation in a convenient manner, more particularly for the purpose of tracing the person who is abducted. "ultimately, so far as the other accused are concerned, anticipatory bail was granted. However, as concluded in paragraph 8 in the said decision, the application of the present petitioner herein was rejected.

( 5 ) MR. Y. N. Oza, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as such the petitioner had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court against the decision dated 19. 11. 2003 whereby the anticipatory bail application was rejected. However, he submitted that the said petition remained pending before the Apex Court for some time in "office objections" and ultimately, as there was change in the circumstances, the petitioner did not press the SLP by accepting the decision of the the Registry of the Apex Court of not registering the SLP. When Mr. Y. N. Oza was called upon to produce a copy of the order passed by the Apex Court before this Court, he has shown his inability to produce the same by saying that when the registration is refused, it may not be possible for the petitioner to produce copy of the order, and the matter, therefore, may be considered accordingly. As such it is the duty of the petitioner to produce the authenticated record of the outcome of the proceedings of the SLP, if filed. However, the petitioner has not produced, and, therefore, this Court is not in a position to verify the outcome of the SLP and the matter