1 CRI.APP.NO. 2360/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2360 OF 2009. Ganpatrao s/o Popatrao Lakare ...Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. ..... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.J.S.Gavane, APP for the respondent. ..... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date: 14th July, 2009. COURT'S ORDER: 1. Perused the order dated 7th July, 2009 refusing bail to the applicant. In view of peculiar circumstances in this case, I thought it fit to dispense with the notice to the State. I heard the application for bail immediately. 2 CRI.APP.NO. 2360/2009. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 95/2008 of Pathardi Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 407, 408, 409 & 465 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence was registered on 2nd of April, 2008. It was alleged that there was misappropriation of huge amount during implementation of certain water supply scheme. It was further alleged that the truck owners, the truck drivers, the Petrol Pump Owners and the present applicant and others created forged document to siphon off Zilla Parishad Funds. Some time prior to 19th December, 2008, the present applicant approached the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar for anticipatory bail and after hearing both the sides and after perusing the police papers and record, etc. the learned Addl. Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. He observed as under: "Under these circumstances, it can be said that there is negligence on the part of the applicant (BDO) who has not verified those documents from time to time by which others have succeeded in committing misappropriation of huge amount. In fact, I do not find any material documents showing the direct role of this applicant by involving him in the 3 CRI.APP.NO. 2360/2009. alleged crime and also while taking participation while committing mis- appropriation of huge amount while implementing the said water scheme in the villages. The applicant-accused is also ready to co-operate to the Police during the investigation. The investigating officer is empowered to take temporary custody of the applicant if he wants to seize any document from his custody etc." 3. These observations clearly establish that the learned Judge before granting the protection to the applicant had thoroughly examined the record and the material against the applicant. But the learned Judge without assigning any specific reason made this order a limited one. He said, this order would be valid for "certain period". He said: "it will be proper that anticipatory bail should be for limited period of two months for enabling the petitioners to have a bail from Court of competent jurisdiction." 4. The learned Judge in operative part of the order, inter alia directed that the order shall have effect of two months i.e. till 18th February, 2009 or till the filing of the charge-sheet which 4 CRI.APP.NO. 2360/2009. ever occurred earlier. 5. By 18th of February, 2009, the police could not file charge-sheet. However, the police did not seek cancellation of this order nor arrest of the applicant for investigation after the expiry of order on 18th February, 2009. 6. The applicant, thereafter, filed second application for anticipatory bail which went before the same learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who had passed the earlier order (Shri R.R.Kadam). Though, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, granted an interim protection to the applicant by his order dated 12th of March, 2009, he refused to continue the same. He rejected the application on 5th of May, 2009. 7. On earlier occasion, I had seen the text of the order dated 5th May,2009. What was pertinent to note in the order was that even on that day, the prosecution did not seek arrest of the applicant for the purpose of investigation and custodial interrogation etc. On the same day (5th May, 2009) the applicant surrendered before the same learned Addl. Sessions Judge and sought regular bail and strangely the learned Judge granted the applicant 'interim bail'. The applicant thus preserved his liberty. However, the applicants bail application 5 CRI.APP.NO. 2360/2009. was ultimately heard by another Addl. Sessions Judge of Ahmednagar viz Shri N.V.Nhavkar. The learned Judge rejected the bail application vide his order dated 7th July, 2009. On perusal of the order it is seen that even on that day the prosecution did not seek police custody of the applicant for the purpose of investigation and for the purpose of custodial interrogation. The learned Judge examined the merits of the case and prima facie came to a conclusion that, " the Block Development Officer was entirely responsible for the same and having considered the the contents of the enquiry, as reflected from the police papers, it can be prima facie concluded that misappropriation of the amount appears to be caused with the knowledge of petrol pump owner and transporter by the Block Development Officer." With the rejection of the application the applicant was taken in M.C.R. & he is now behind bars. 8. The applicant is in custody since 7th of July, 2009 and I am told that the Investigation Officer has not sought his police custody remand for investigation purpose at all since last more than one week. The applicant deserves bail immediately. The application is allowed. i) The applicant is released on bail of Rs. 6 CRI.APP.NO. 2360/2009. 10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only), with one surety in the like amount. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp