1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO: 3061/2009 (Ram Arun Lanke vs. State of Maharashtra ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr A A Naik, Adv. For applicant Mr Anup Parihar ,APP for Respondent C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 27th August, 2009. 1. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that the present applicant who is working as an Inspecting Officer, Food Supply Department Akot Dist.Akola had already submitted a report to the District Supply Officer regarding breaches of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act by the first informant in this case and enraged by that probably the first informant decided to lodge a complaint for offence punishable under section 384, 294 and 506 of the IPC. He further contended that assuming for the sake of arguments that contents of FIR are true, even then prima facie Section 384 of IPC cannot be attracted as there was no delivery of the property by the first informant. He placed reliance upon the ruling in Dhananjay vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 768 , more particularly, observations in para nos. 6 to 11 thereof. Thus, according to learned Advocate for the applicant first informant had not admittedly delivered any property or valuable security to the accused. Thus, non-bailable offence punishable under section 384 of IPC was not attracted. Learned counsel further placed reliance on Sanjay Pandey vs. Chaganlal Jain reported in 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 507 to submit that ingredients of section 384 IPC ought to be made out at the prima facie stage. 2. Learned APP opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that investigation is at its preliminary stage and that provisions of 2 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 may also be attracted and, therefore, the anticipatory bail may be rejected. 3. At the stage when interim anticipatory bail was granted, it was observed that the applicant is working as Inspecting Officer had inspected the shop of complainant K N Jaulkar and found certain irregularities and FIR also came to be lodged by the applicant and District Supply Officer against K N Jaulkar, who is the first informant in the present case. Under these circumstances the possibility that public servant may be humiliated by a counter complaint cannot be ruled out at this prima facie stage. Of course, considering that the investigation into the serious accusations are in progress, the applicant will have to cooperate with the investigation and I think conditional anticipatory bail will be appropriate to ensure completion of investigation early and further to ensure that public servant shall not be humiliated. Hence the order: Interim anticipatory bail granted on 13th August, 2009 shall stand confirmed, subject to same conditions, with further condition that the applicant shall attend the I.O. between 12.00 noon and 2.00 p.m. for first seven days and thereafter as and when required. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE. sahare