IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.2709 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.2709 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.2709 OF 2008 1. Dhairyashil Keshavrao Mane, 2. Yakub Sayabaji Sadalage, 3. Shoukar Mohammed Mulla, 4. Shrikant Parasharam Desai, 5. Gopal Ramchandra Chavan, 6. Mr Satish Anandrao Patil, 7. Rajendra Mahadev Gurav, 8. Anil Ramchandra Vadiyar, .. Applicants Vs State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent AND CRI.APPLICATION NO.2710 OF 2008 1. Sou Shalan Rajendra Kagale 2. Sou Sangita Prashant Kadam, 3. Sou.Rekha Balaso Shintre, 4. Sou Dipti Deelip Kulkarni, 5. Sou. Jayshree Sudhakar Nalavade, 6. Sou.Shilpa Pratap Patil, 7. Sou.Sumedha Sanjay Kabbe, 8. Sou.Radhika Rajendra Patil, 9. Sou.Ashalata Mohanrao Patil, Applicants. Vs State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent. Mr K.S.Patil, for the applicants. Mr K.V.Saste, APP for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 06/10/2008 DATE : 06/10/2008 DATE : 06/10/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.Saste, learned APP, for the State. 2. The 17 applicants in these two applications have applied for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C in CR No.97 of 2008 of Juna Rajwada Police, Kolhapur. The said crime has been registered for allegedly committing the offences punishable under sections 405,406,415, 416,417,420, 427,463,464,465, 467 read with section 34 of IPC. 3. Mr Patil, learned counsel for the applicants, at the outset, submitted that there are in all 61 accused involved in the present case. He submitted that 17 accused including Chairman, Vice Chairman, some Directors, General Managers and Branch Managers have already been released on bail. They were in custody for hardly 4-5 days. He then submitted that 12 accused have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. He submitted that there is absolutely no difference between the role ascribed to the 12 accused, who have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, and the role ascribed to the present applicants. The 12 applicants, who have been granted bail, were Directors, Ex-Directors, Branch Managers. One of the General Managers has also been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. In view of this statement, to my specific query to learned APP, he, on instructions from the investigating officer who is present in the court, without disputing the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants, fairly conceded that there is no difference between the case of the present applicants and those who have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. He submitted that the investigating agency would be satisfied if all the applicants are directed to report to the concerned police station for some time. 4. I have perused the entire materials placed on record. It appears that after the interim protection was granted by this Court vide order dated 11.8.2008, all the applicants have cooperated with the investigation. It is petinant to note that at no stage the State has challenged the order granting bail to the seventeen accused or cancellation of the order granting anticipatory bail to the twelve accused. Keeping that in view, I am inclined to grant the prayer for anticipatory bail to all the applicants on parity. Hence, I pass the following order. 5. Each of the applicants be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.25000/- each, with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the following condition that all the applicants shall report to the concerned investigating officer every day between 10 am and 11 a till 25.10.2008 and thereafter as and when called. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)