1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.735 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through, P.I.Parner Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Jaywant Ramji Bhangare, Age-32 years, Occu-Service, 2. Sachin Annasaheb Pote, Age-28 years, Occu-Service, 3. Rakeshkumar Somnath Rawate, Age-27 years, Occu-Service, 4. Shankar SureshJagtap, Age-27 years, Occu-Service, 5. Ashru Chimaji Devgire, Age-47 years, Occu-Service, 6. Vilas Raghunath Late, Age-57 years, Occu-Service, All R/o.Parner, Tal.Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.736 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through, 2 P.I.Parner Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS Satish Bhimashankar Shete, Age-56 years, Occu-Service, R/o.1226, Shriram Colony, Alamgir Road, Bhingar, Tal.Nagar, Dist.Ahmednagar RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.737 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through, P.I.Parner Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS Popat Bhivaji Katare, Age-58 years, Occu-Pensioner, R/o.Shakun Apartment, Ahmednagar, Jagtapmala, Nashik Road, Nashik RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.738 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through, P.I.Parner Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS 3 Ganesh Shivaji Markad, Age-34 years, Occu-Service, (Tahsildar, Jalgaon) R/o.Jalgaon, Tal. And Dist. Jalgaon RESPONDENT Mrs.V.A.Shinde, learned counsel for applicant/State in all applications. Smt.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for respondents in Cri.Appl.735/10 Mr.B.N.Palve, learned counsel for respondents in Cri.Appl.736/2010 and Cri.Appl.No.737/2010 Mr.N.V.Gaware, learned counsel for respondent in Cri.Appl.738/2010 CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 21/06/2010 PER COURT : 1. All these applications are moved by the State of Maharashtra, through Parner Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Cri.M.A.No.902/2009, 928/2009, 901/2009, 899/2009. All these applications were disposed of by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar vide his orders dated 13/11/2009 and granted anticipatory bail to the respondents herein, who were the applicants in those respective applications. 2. Heard learned APP for applicant and learned counsel for respondents. All these orders of anticipatory bail were passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in connection with CR No.248/2009, registered in Parner Police Station. 4 3. The respondent in Cri.Appl.No.737/2010 is a retired Tahsildar, attached to the Tahsil Office. Respondent in Cri.Appl.No.738/2010 is the Tahsildar working at Tahsil Office Parner, who has taken charge of the Tahsil Office just before the complaint was lodged. The allegations against these respondents are that inspite of complaints were lodged against the remaining respondents by the complainant, they have not taken any action in time to initiate the inquiry. The respondent in Cri.Appl.No.736/2010 is the Nayab Tahsildar, attached to Parner Tahsil Office at the relevant time. Applicant no.1 in Cri.Appl.No.735/2010 is working with the Consolidation Unit, applicant no.2 have joined the Tahsil Office and working in Mine and Minerals Department, applicant no.3 was working in Compilation Department of Land Records, applicant no.4 was working in the Establishment Department, applicant no.5 was working in the General Administration Department, but joined the Tahsil Office Parner on 13/04/2007, applicant no.6 is retired on attaining superannuation during the pendancy of these applications on 31/05/2010. 4. Considering the submissions across the bar, it is necessary to know that on 07/12/2005, circular was circulated by the Collector, Ahmednagar about the issuance of identity cards by the NGO’s w.e.f. 24/01/2006. Considering the various difficulties about the proof of age certificate and fitness certificate issued by the concerned Medical Officers, it is decided that those applications received for issuance of identity card, that work was assigned to two NGO’s. These two 5 institutes to issue identity cards to the concerned senior citizens on receipt of the applications to be received through the office of Tahsil, Parner. The allegations in the complaint against these respondents, who are arrayed as an accused are that they have not received the forms in the prescribed format, but received the forwarded forms in old format. The role to be performed by the officials attached to the Tahsil Office is to receive the forms and forward it to the NGO’s and these NGO’s to issue the requisite identity cards of senior citizens to the concerned applicant. Now in this background, one more fact require to be considered that earlier the work was assigned to Setu to receive the applications and to issue the identity cards. Because of the circulars of Collector, Ahmednagar, Setu stopped functioning the work of issuing the identity cards and reported accordingly to the Tahsil Office Parner. That wording of this circular/ notification, which appears to be produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has passed this order, find reference in para no.6 of each of the orders. 5. According to learned APP, while granting the anticipatory bail to these applicants, the material placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar was not properly appreciated by him and passed otherwise order and granted anticipatory bail in favour of these applicants which require to be recalled. 6. The prosecution, while recalling that order by cancelling anticipatory bail, require to bring on record certain facts like misuse 6 of the liberty granted to these applicants, which is not the case of prosecution, or the order is perverse and illegal, but the complaint is silent about the role played by the respondents, or the material placed before the Lower Court was not properly appreciated. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is not brought to the notice of this Court that the material which was placed before the Court below, was not properly considered. On the contrary, on reading the text of these applications, it nowhere find place that which material was placed before the Lower Court, and which material was not properly considered by the court concerned. 7. If the prosecution failed to bring certain facts to the notice of this Court, and on the basis of material placed before the Court, and as the liberty is not misused and majority of the respondents are still in service, and it is not a case of the prosecution that the respondents herein are failed to attend the interrogation whenever called by the Investigation Officer concerned, this Court do not think that these are the fit cases in which the order passed by the court below, require any interference at the hands of this Court. In substance, all these applications are devoid of any merit and require to be rejected. Hence these all 4 applications stands rejected accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JUNE 2010/cri.appl.735-10