1 CR.APL NOS. 3927/2010, 3706/2010, 3669/2010, 3674/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1. APPLN/3927/2010 SHAIKH HAIDAR MOHMMAD HAJI [Criminal] V/S THE STATE OF MAH WITH APPLN/3706/2010 MALHARI MARIBA DHAWALE V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA WITH APPLN/3669/2010 DAYANAND TUKARAM SHINDE V/S THE STATE OF MAH WITH APPLN/3674/2010 KASHINATH VENKATRAO GARUDI V/S THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar, Mr.S.N.Lavekar, Mrs. S.G.Chincholkar, Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocates for the respective applicants. Mr. V.H.Dighe, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 23-2-2011 1. Heard. The applicants are Government employees. The applicant in Application No.3927/2010 ( Shaikh Haider) retired on 31st May, 2009, as 2 CR.APL NOS. 3927/2010, 3706/2010, 3669/2010, 3674/2010 Deputy Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Applicant in Application No.3669/2010 (Dayanand Tukaram Shinde) is Junior Engineer. The applicant in Application No.3674/2010 ( Kashinath Venkatrao Garudi) is Gram Sevak. Applicant in Application No. 3706/2010 ( Malhari Mariba Dhawale) was Block Development Officer, retired on 31st Dec.,2010. 2. One Anantwar Dattatraya Pandurang, claiming himself to be the President of an organization in Taluka Hadgaon, claimed that for one work, two payments are received and, for that purpose, has moved the authorities. His applications were attended to, even replies were sent to the Collector dt.10.6.2010. The said complainant was also informed on 10.5.2010. 3. After interim relief by this Court, since objections were raised and doubts crept in, report was called to ensure whether, without carrying resurfacing road, 3 CR.APL NOS. 3927/2010, 3706/2010, 3669/2010, 3674/2010 payments are released and, that too, for the same road, double payments are released. The reports from the authorities are in itself suspicious and add to confusion than clarity. Learned A.P.P. desired to point from a map that from particular marked portion to another marked portion, the payments are received twice, however, he could not substantiate the same from official record. 4. On perusal of the communication dt.10.5.2010, addressed to the Collector, the release of the payments for the work which was carried is illustrated. The work was proposed to be done from the house of Ashok Kamble to the house of Keshav Kandhare, Keshav Khandare to Suresh Kokare, Panchsheel OTA to the house of Sakharam Matre but only the work from the house of Ashok Kamble to Keshav Khandare/Panchsheel OTA (lane of Ramrao Kokare) to Yadav Matre to Sakharam Matre was done and the other works were not completed or not taken up. The release of the 4 CR.APL NOS. 3927/2010, 3706/2010, 3669/2010, 3674/2010 payment was to the Gram Panchayat and at no point of time the present applicants could remotely be shown beneficiaries for such release. Whatever work was carried, it was by contractor deputed/appointed by the Gram Panchayat. At the most, role of the present applicants could be dereliction in duty to verify the work at the site, however, that will not prima facie involve infraction of Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, read with Section 34 of IPC to face criminal prosecution in terms of Crime No.47/2010. These are prima facie observations. 5 Taking these facts into consideration, the official record being available with the Department/investigator, custodial interrogation of these applicants, few of whom are already retired and settled in their life, is not required. Least chance of applicants absconding or fleeing from command of the investigator. 5 CR.APL NOS. 3927/2010, 3706/2010, 3669/2010, 3674/2010 6. Hence, in the event of arrest of accused/applicants, each one of them be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- ( Rs. Fifteen thousand), each. The accused/applicants shall record their appearance whenever specifically notified by the investigator, they will also surrender record, if any, or explain their role, if so commanded. Applications allowed as above. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/3927-10craplgr