cra3178.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3178 OF 2011 Keshav s/o Sheshrao Jaybhaye, Age-36 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Village Chanegaon, Tq-Badnapur, Dist-Jalna. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, 2) The P.I. of Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.C.R. Deshpande Advocate for Applicant. Shri.N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 2ND AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This Application is filed for anticipatory bail in C.R. No.129 of 2011, registered in Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna, cra3178.11 2 Dist-Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 217, 218, 417, 418, 409, 485, 466, 120-B(2), 109, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The papers of investigation were made available. Both the sides are heard. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by Deputy Executive Engineer of flying squad of MSEB, Corporation created for distribution of electricity. In the report, it is contended that so many cases are detected, in which the members of flying squad joined hands with the consumers and they created false record. Allegations are there that even when there was a detection of theft of electricity, the detection was suppressed and it was shown that the meter was not working. When there were cases that electricity of higher load was used, it was suppressed or some record was created to show that the matter can be compounded. The instances are around 36. Present Applicant was working as Junior cra3178.11 3 Engineer, one Sawarkar was working as Deputy Engineer and one Patil was working as other Junior Engineer of the flying squad. When Sawarkar was transferred to other place, present Applicant was made in-charge of the flying squad and as such he worked for some time. There is allegation that by using different modus operandi by Sawarkar, Patil and present Applicant, loss was caused to the M.S.E.B. and also to the Government. The chart is prepared in the F.I.R. to show the probable loss and it is contended that M.S.E.B. was duped to the extent of Rs.7,41,380/- and the Government was duped to the extent of Rs.24,96,000/-. 3. It is the case of the Applicant that he brought these irregularities to the notice of the department by giving report against Sawarkar and Patil. Copy of the report is produced, which is dated 31st August, 2010. He has made allegations that no action was taken due to interference of Sawarkar and Patil even when theft was detected. cra3178.11 4 In some cases, even when reading was not available, false report was prepared that the meter was normal, when the meter was not working, the exact period since when the meter was not working was not ascertained and the meter was not taken in custody. When the electricity was used for commercial purpose like stone crushing, when the theft was detected, no action was taken. When electricity was used for flour mill, commercial purpose, no action was taken. Some electricity was taken in some cases by bypassing the meter, by committing theft, but through lineman the meters were got corrected and without creating record the cases were closed, in some cases without examination of meters, the meters were changed and that way benefit was given to the consumers. 4. In the report, the Applicant has contended that he joined only on 1st November, 2008 and he took sometime to understand the nature of work. He has contended that he went on signing cra3178.11 5 the reports and papers under pressure of Sawarkar and Patil. Papers were prepared to show less load of electricity and false bills were prepared. He has contended that when he was opposing, threats were given to him by Patil and Sawarkar that departmental action would be taken against him. He has contended that to show that the threat was real, D.O. letters were also given to him. In one case, he has contended that he had prepared report (D.V.S. No.44201) of theft and he had made assessment as per commercial use but Sawarkar and Patil forced him to prepare bill for domestic use. He has contended that when he had prepared record of connected load in respect of D.V.S. No.44311, the load was reduced by Patil and Sawarkar and some appliances were removed from the report and the matter was compounded. In two cases, according to him, he was forced to file F.I.R.'s. He has contended that even when Sawarkar left, Patil continued such activities and under his threat, he prepared false record in atleast three cases that cra3178.11 6 the meters were not working. He has contended that in some cases of theft, bills were prepared by Patil and his signatures were obtained forcibly. 5. The aforesaid contentions of the Applicant show that he admits his active involvement in many cases in which the Government and M.S.E.B. is duped. It can be said that only few instances are noticed. In such cases, only after custodial interrogation more cases can be detected. Only because the Applicant gave report against Patil and Sawarkar, it cannot be inferred that he was acting honestly. Whenever there is dispute amongst the persons who get involved in such activities, somebody comes forward and gives report. In view of such probabilities, this Court holds that this is not a fit case for granting relief of anticipatory bail. 6. The Advocate for the Applicant cited the reported Judgment in the case of Siddharam cra3178.11 7 Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 A.I.R. S.C.W. 3813, in which the criteria of consideration of anticipatory bail application are laid down. It can be said that for making fair, free and full investigation of the case, the custody of the Applicant is necessary and so the observations made by the Apex Court, are of no use to the Applicant. 7. So, the Criminal Application stands rejected. These observations are only for ascertaining as to whether there is prima facie case and these observations will not come in the way of the trial Court at the time of deciding the case. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] asb/AUG11