1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1281 of 2010 Sheikh and anr v. The State of Maharashtra ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr F. T. Mirza, Adv for applicants Mr Adgokar, APP for State Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 27th August 2010 1. Applicants are seeking bail in Crime No. 3051/10 registered with Police Station, Mehkar for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants are in custody since 28th July 2010. It is also contended that father of the applicant no.1 is whole-sale kerosene dealer and he has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana. Alleged seizure was made from the godown situated in the land owned by father of applicant no.1 and let out to one Satyajeet Trading Company, Mehkar. 3. Learned APP objects grant of bail by filing reply dated 25.8.2010 which is vehemently criticised by learned counsel for the applicants on the ground that the same is containing false and misleading statements. It is stated in para 3 of the reply that Revision No. 90/2010 is preferred by the respondent to challenge anticipatory bail granted to accused Sk. Mukhtar. 2 Learned counsel for the applicants is, however, quick to point that Criminal Revision Application No. 90 of 2010 was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 16th July 2010 which relates to one Smt Archana v. Radheshyam and ors. Learned APP now submits that the said revision was moved before the Principal Sessions Judge. Certified copy of order dated 16.8.2010 is brought to my notice by learned counsel for the applicant with contention that it related to an order passed by the JMFC, Mehkar in remand matter by which PCR was refused and the revision was dismissed on 16.8.2010 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Buldana. It is not understood as to how revision application would lie before the Sessions Judge who granted anticipatory bail to accused Sk. Mukhtar. Be that as it may, it is obvious that misleading statement has been made in the reply. It is further stated in the reply that applicants are habitual offenders and to brand applicants as habitual offender, it is averred that Crime No. 3019/06 is registered against applicant no.1. This is again misleading and irresponsible statement made in the reply. Learned APP shall be careful in future in taking instructions from the Investigating Officers. He should know that filing of reply to the bail application opposing grant of bail is not a bare responsibility and statements to be made in the replies are to be made with full sense of responsibility. Copy of this order be sent to concerned Investigating Officer for note in future. 4. Considering the nature of accusations and contentions advanced on behalf of the applicants, I am inclined to grant condition bail. 5. Applicants be released on bail on their executing PR in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the equal amount provided further that they shall attend Investigating Officer until 3 completion of investigation and thereafter shall attend trial on each date of hearing. Applicants shall not tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner. They shall inform their fixed address together with telephone/ cellphone number, if any, to the Investigating Officer and shall communicate change therein, if any, forthwith in future. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Judge. hsj