1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.537 of 2010 [Goraksha M. Sumb Vs. State of Mah.] WITH Criminal Application No.542 of 2010 [Bhaskar A. Pandilwar Vs. State of Mah.] WITH Criminal Application No.543 of 2010 [Prakash D. Walthare Vs. State of Mah.] WITH Criminal Application No.550 of 2010 [Baban U. Rakhunde Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Criminal Appln. No. 537 of 2010 : Mr. G.N. Khanzode, Adv., for the Applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondent. ----- Criminal Appln. No. 542 of 2010 : Mr. G.N. Khanzode, Adv., for the Applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondent. ----- Criminal Appln. No. 543 of 2010 : Mr. G.N. Khanzode, Adv., for the Applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondent. ----- Criminal Appln. No. 550 of 2010 : Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Adv., for the Applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. 2 DATE : 08th April, 2010. 1. These four applications for anticipatory bail arise out of one crime, namely Crime No. 3007/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Heard learned Advocates for the applicants and learned APP Mr. V.A. Thakre for respondent at length. 3. The First Information Report is registered on the basis of the letter written by the Conservator of Forests, South Circle, Chandrapur, dated 9/10th March, 2010. 4. Perused the First Information Report and three statements of witnesses forming part of Case Diary, which, according to learned APP, are important. 5. Said letter / FIR discloses at many places certain acts and omissions of the accused persons. These misdeeds, which have led to registration of offences, have been emphasized by the learned APP, and those are discreetly scrutinized by this Court. 6. It would be useful to refer after translation into English, the contents of these points from original vernacular Marathi text of First Information Report. Relevant is translated as follows:- 3 [i] The Officer, who was in the charge of the Selection Committee and his subordinates, lost control on the selection process. This has resulted in leakage of question papers, and photo copies whereof were distributed amongst the candidates appearing for the examination. [ii] Though collective responsibility of security and confidentiality of question papers was on Mr. Sumbh, Asstt. Conservator of Forests, Mr. Ramteke, Clerk, and Mr. Turile, Peon. During the process of typewriting and photo copying of the question papers, Mr. Rakhunde had free access to the premises where this work was being done. These persons entrusted with the responsibility have not done the work with sincerity and devotion. Therefore, their acts amount to either negligence or acts done in order to extend the benefit to some persons. [iii] Mr. Rishikesh Ranjan, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Alapalli Forest Division, Mr. Raurkar, Asstt. Conservator of Forests, Bhamragad Division, and Mr. Panchal, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Sironcha Division, did not vigilantly attend to for security of questions papers, which has resulted in leakage of the question papers. These accused persons have shown lack of expertise in the work entrusted to 4 them. 7. Therefore, this Court had called upon the learned APP to specify as to whether these acts of negligence, lack of proficiency, slackness in supervision etc., do fit into the description of any of the offences of the Indian Penal Code, or Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. Learned APP tried to read out from some of the statements recorded during the process of investigation, and has argued that the process of conducting examination was full of suspicion. The suspicion arose due to reasons, such as:- (a) Relatives of the employees of Forest Department have secured higher marks. (b) Indiscipline was pervading in the examination hall. (c) Free use of mobile phones was done by the candidates. (d) Candidates used to freely discuss amongst themselves. (e) Copying material was supplied to the candidates. 9. Further, in order to oppose the anticipatory bail, learned APP fervently relied upon the reported Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme 5 Court in case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu & another [AIR 1997 SC 3589]. 10. Considering the strong objection to the anticipatory bail based on the Judgment in case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bimbal Krishna Kundu & another [cited supra], this Court has perused the said ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court. 11. In the said case of State of Andhra Pradesh [supra], the bail was granted by the Sessions Court as well as by the Single Judge of the High Court. High Court has observed, as noted in para 6 of the said judgment, that :- “6. After perusing the materials on record learned single Judge persuaded himself to grant anticipatory bail, mainly for the following reasoning: “That being so, what are the offences that can be said to have been made out is the question for consideration. It is fairly stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the offences made out against these petitioners are punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 406, I.P.C. Be it noted that they are all first class offences (sic) and not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Moreover, the investigation appears to have been completed to a great extent. Even if custodial interrogation of Kundus, who are seeking anticipatory bail is requested, there can be no 6 objection to interrogate them. (It is evident that by the words “first class offences” learned single Judge would only have meant “offences triable by a Magistrate of First Class.”)” 12. Lordships of Supreme Court found that the grant of relief with the said reasons was grossly inappropriate. Their Lordships held so because, it was a case where M/s. Eureka Printers Pvt. Ltd., running the Printing business, whose Director was Mr. Bimal Krishna Kundu and his son Harishakesh Kundu were blacklisted by Public Service Commission on account of leaking the question papers. Despite these accused persons had secured the work of printing the question papers of the Public Service Commission from other agencies to whom the said work was allotted by Public Service Commission, and the accused had again leaked the question papers. 13. Considering the fact of the matter, as was obtaining in the case of State of Andhra Praces [cited supra] before Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was a definite case where the protection under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code ought not to have been granted, as the accused had a definite criminal background for offence of same nature. 14. In the present case, nothing clinching is brought forward by the investigation 7 machinery. It is barely asserted by prosecution that the present applicants are involved. What is expressed is in the form of apprehension of doubt about the applicants' involvement in the offence. Case Diary also does not disclose anything concrete, which may have led to the apprehension. 15. In spite of discreet scrutiny in the process of hearing, learned APP is not able to pinpoint any specific imputation against any of the applicants, which could even by bare description would constitute commission of an offence adequate enough to register an offence and which would, in turn, empower the police to arrest the concerned without warrant. 16. In absence of such description of commission of offence consisting of ingredients of offence under some Sections of any Criminal Law, even without going into worthiness and truthfulness thereof, it would be wholly unjust to deny to the applicants protection sought for by them. 17. No allegation, whatsoever, individually against each amongst the applicants at least prima facie involving them in offence, whatsoever, is shown. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to the protection by way of anticipatory bail sought for by them. All these four applications are, therefore, allowed. 8 18. In the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail on furnishing a Personal Bond and a Solvent Surety in a sum of Rs.25,000- 00 [rupees twenty-five thousand only]. 19. They shall co-operate with the police in the process of investigation, interrogation etc., and shall attend the Investigating Officer at such time and place as he may appoint between 12th and 20th April, 2010 between 9-00 a.m., and 1-30 p.m., and thereafter as and when called. 20. As this Court has noticed that at present the Investigating Agency is searching for the exact offence and offenders, in the event, the Investigating Officers are able to lay hands on specific persons and specific acts, including present applicants, and register independent offence, the powers available to them in that event as to arrest would remain unaffected by this order. Judge |Hedau|