1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.700 OF 2010 Ravindra Kashinath Athwale APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENT Mr.G.R.Syed, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 11/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.1/10, registered in Mudkhed Police Station of Dist. Nanded for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, and learned APP appearing for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of Circle Inspector, Tahsil Mudkhed, Tal. Mudkhed, Dist. 2 Nanded, as report was submitted by the Talathi, Chikala, taluka Mudkhed to the District Collector about to conduct the inquiry as complaints were received that Village Kamgar Talathi K.V.Athwale, who is appointed at Chikala Tanda, during his illness, his son, the present applicant is handling the revenue record and in that process, illegally changed 12 entries in the revenue record and issued 7/12 extracts of the government land, enabling those persons to obtain the loan on the basis that entries showing that they are the land holders. In view of these complaints, inquiry appeared to be conducted by the Circle Inspector. During the inquiry, certain statements of those persons to whom the 7/12 extracts were supplied, were recorded. The statement of those 12 persons shows that by making the incorrect mutation entries from 156, 158, 159. 165, 166, 170, 171, 173, 176, 177, 184 and 185, certain 7/12 extracts were issued to those 12 persons. So far as revenue record is concerned, it is to be handled by the concerned revenue officer appointed by the State Government and none else. Statement of those persons clearly discloses that present applicant issued 7/12 extracts to them for which he charged certain amount. On the basis of these 7/12 extracts, provided to those persons, they have obtained the loan. 4. Considering these allegations in the complaint, as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded during the inquiry clearly discloses that the revenue record was changed at the hands of present applicant, who is not the government employee. This is a serious racket, indulging in changing the revenue record. In such 3 circumstances, even though it is contended that the present applicant is a student and his bright future will be spoiled and damaged if he is detained behind bars for custodial interrogation, his custodial interrogation is necessary, because the duty of the student is to take education and not to indulge in any malpractice in any Government Department. As against this, the applicant even though was a student, has changed the revenue record, of which his father is the official custodian. The nature of the offence is very serious. No leniency in such serious offence to be granted in favour of the guilty persons. Application sans any merit, hence rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR 2010/cri.appl.700-10