(1) CR.APP. 2319.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2319 OF 2009 Jagannath S/o Bansilal Rathi Age : 53 years, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o Pravara Nagar, Tq. Rahata, District – Ahmednagar .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2320 OF 2009 Bharatlal S/o Shankarrao Londhe, Age : 51 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Tisgaon, Tq. Pathardi, District – Ahmednagar .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. N.B. Khandare, PP for the Respondent-State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 9TH JULY, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Both the applications can be disposed of by (2) CR.APP. 2319.2009 this common order. The applicants are seeking bail in crime no.95 of 2008 of Pathardi Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar. The applicants and others are accused of committing offence of cheating and criminal misappropriation etc. 2] The applicant in criminal application no. 2319 of 2009, is the Chairman of a Co-operative Society formed by the truck owners and the applicant in criminal application no. 2320 of 2009 is the owner of a petrol pump. The society of the applicants, got contract of transportation of potable water in taluka Pathardi during the water scarcity period of 2006-2007. After the scheme was implemented fully, it was revealed that the B.D.O., the members of the Co-operative Society including the present applicants, the drivers of the vehicle and the fuel pump owners conspired to misappropriate huge amounts by forging false cash memos etc. The offence was registered on 2.5.2008. Apprehending arrest the applicants moved applications for anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar sometime before 19.12.2008. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri R.R. Kadam granted them protection of anticipatory bail after examining merits of the case but made the protection limited till 18.2.2009 or till the chargesheet is filed, whichever occurred earlier. On 18.2.2009, the chargesheet was not filed and so, the order of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the applicants (3) CR.APP. 2319.2009 got expired on that day. The applicants again approached the same learned Judge with application for anticipatory bail on 23.2.2009. This time the application was opposed and by order dated 5.5.2009 the learned Judge, refused to grant the application. The learned Judge, this time specifically mentioned that he purposely gave limited protection to the applicants when he passed his earlier order dated 19.12.2008. However, the learned Judge, did not mention in his order dated 5.5.2009 as to why the same protection was not extended. He simply mentioned “I have already applied my mind while imposing such conditions upon the applicant by granting interim relief for limited period by which now further extension of anticipatory bail order cannot be granted in such a serious crime.” The learned Judge did not discuss as to whether the circumstances in between had changed, thus dis-entitling the applicants further protection. 3] The applicants thereafter on 18.5.2009, again approached the same learned Judge, and this time they sought regular bail. They said they were surrendering before the learned Judge in the said case. Surprisingly the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri Kadam granted them interim bail of Rs.20000/- each with one surety each. The learned Judge clearly stated in this order that the interim relief was granted to the applicants and he expected the State to oppose the application. The applicants’ (4) CR.APP. 2319.2009 regular bail application thus remained pending. On 7.7.2009 the applicants’ regular bail applications were opposed and another Judicial Officer Shri Nhavkar rejected the said applications. The learned Judge discussed the facts, allegations and the finding of the investigation while rejecting the applications for bail. However, there is no indication in this order, that the State sought Police custody of the applicants for the purpose of investigation. While rejecting the application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri Nhavkar directed that the applicants be taken in Magisterial custody and to produce before the concerned Magistrate without indicating as to when they should be produced etc. 4] I am told that despite the order, the applicants has so far not been produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The present application is opposed by the State. The learned Public Prosecutor Shri Khandare, tried to refer to the facts of the case and the stage of investigation etc. He was trying to inform me that the role attributed to the applicants in this case was quite serious etc. But even today, the learned Public Prosecutor did not seek Police custody of the applicants for the purpose of interrogation etc. the applicants deserve bail today and they deserved bail even on 7.7.2009. It is clear from the circumstances narrated above that the applicants were protected (5) CR.APP. 2319.2009 with anticipatory bail, since December, 2008 and thus could avoid their arrest in this case. In the meantime, for last more than six months the investigation is going on. At no point of time the Investigation Officer sought custodial interrogation of the applicants. The Investigation Officer could have arrested the applicants on 18.12.2009 when the protection of first anticipatory bail order came to end on that day. He could have arrested the applicants even on 5.5.2009, and as said above, he could have insisted for taking them in Police custody on 5.5.2009 as well as on 7.7.2009. 5] In view of this checkered consequences through which the applicants went, I think the applicants deserve bail. The applicants are released on bail of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount. 6] Both the Criminal Applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/9july9/cr2319.09