1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 742 OF 2010. APPLICANTS : 1 Mahendra Dhaniram Ganvir, aged major, present under suspension, 2 Sau. Sarita Wd/o Sharad Ambekar, aged major, Occupation-present under suspension Both residents of Buldhana, Tah. & District Buldhana. -VERSUS- RESPONDENT: The State of Maharashtra, through its P.S.O., (City Police Station), Buldhana Shri A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for applicant. Shri S. S. Doifode APP for the respondent State. Shri R. G. Kavimandan, Advocate for assisting the prosecution for original complainant. CORAM: A. H. JOSHI, J. DATED: 5th AUGUST 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Perused the charge sheet and case diary. 3. The applicants are the accused nos.3 & 4 in Crime No.261 of 2010 under Section 420,465, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Offence has been investigated and chargesheet has been filed. 4. The accused no.1 Sachin Ambekar and accused No.2 2 Rajani Ambekar have been arrested and are in Magisterial custody. 5. The applicants pray for bail on the ground that:- (a) In the FIR and other evidence main allegations of cheating are made against the accused nos.1 & 2, and role attributed against present applicants is only as to promise for repayment of money taken by accused no.1. (b) Though the accused Nos.1 & 2 lived with (applicant no.2), however, the applicants are not involved in commission of offence whatsoever. (c) Applicant No.2 being woman her case be considered for bail on that ground. (d) The offence is triable by Magistrate and punishable with 7 years sentence and hence present is a fit case for grant of bail. 6. Perusal of case diary discloses that: (a) The complainant gave money for securing employment in the District Court Buldana to accused Sachin & Ranjana. (b) The total amount paid by the complainant to said accused in various installments is Rs.3,50,000/-. 3 (c) Those accused used to represent that accused Sachin has access to the District Judge through present applicants due to their employment in the Court, as well as due to his own acquaintance. (d) When appointment order was not received, the complainants started pestering all the accused for refund. All the accused had represented to the complainant that for receiving appointment order, it will need more time as there is a waiting list of 35 candidates, and alternatively offered to repay the amount by installments. (e) In para 4 of FIR, the accused no.4 - applicant no.1 Mahendra Ganvir has been shown to be involved. (f) Though in the First Information Report, details of involvement of accused Nos.3 & 4 are not given, in the statements of the witnesses, recorded by the police, narration as to involvement of applicants has been disclosed. (g) It is also seen from the statements of witnesses that they have named the applicants as collaborators in commission of offence. (h) It is seen that the Court staff and their family members have indulged in building a 4 racket of corrupt measure in relation to employment in the Court. 7. Now in the background of aforesaid revelation from the accompaniments of the chargesheet, this Court has to see whether the applicant should be released on bail on the ground that chargesheet is already filed, the offence is triable by Magistrate and maximum sentence is only 7 years. 8. This Court has also to see whether the applicants have right of liberty in the background of serious offence alleged against them. 9. At this stage, this Court has to see from whatever material available on record as to whether prima facie the applicants are seen involved in the commission of offence for which they are being tried. 10. Proximity and nexus between the accused persons who have received money and the present applicants is seen positively. The applicants had occasion to disown and disassociate themselves from Sachin and Ranjana, which they have not done and on the other hand, they have associated with these two accused persons so tightly that they have promised to repay the amount in the event the appointment is not given. Instead of disowning and denying any 5 involvement & relationship with the scandle, it is seen from the evidence that the applicants have initially suggested that they have no concern with Sachin and Rajani, but later represented that the appointment order would be received, and alternatively offered and later actually paid one installment towards refund. 11. The facts noted in the foregoing para which have come on record almost in positive manner, prima facie, bond the accused applicants tightly in the commission of offence. 12. The result which has to ensue is that prima facie, the accused are seen involved in the commission of offence. 13. Just because the offence is triable by the Magistrate and punishable only with 7 years imprisonment by itself does not mean that the applicants are entitled to enjoy the liberty and for that purpose the bail should follow. 14. If on what prima facie appears, the applicants are most likely, or are apparently seen involved and chance of their conviction stands on a fair side. The question which arises is just because they are being tried by Magistrate, should they be 6 entitled to enjoy and avail of the liberty, and answer has to be in the negative. When on what prima facie appears, the involvement of the accused applicants is seen positive, it is better that they do not enjoy and avail of the liberty and continue to remain in jail. 15. At this stage, therefore, it cannot be believed that the applicants may not be involved in commission of offence registered against them. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. This application is, therefore, rejected. 16. Learned Advocate Mr. Mardikar, at this stage, prays that ad interim protection granted by this Court may be continued for 30 days for enabling the applicants to take proper steps. In view that ad interim bail is already operating for months, this Court considers it proper to continue ad interim order of bail granted by this Court by order dated 14-5-2010 for a period of 30 days from today. Certified copy is expedited. JUDGE //MULEY// 7