IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1141/2008 Anil Mamane & another ..vs.. State ====================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE:23.4.2008 Heard Mr. Gadling, Advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Khade, A.P.P. for state. The applicants are being prosecuted for the offences punishable u/s 18, 35, 38 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Amendment Act 2004, Section 142, 147 of Indian Railways Act, r/w section 120, 1240A, 34 of I.P.C. in crime no.3005/2007 of G.R.P. Police Station Railway Nagpur. The allegations against the applicants are quite serious. It appears from the record and from the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties that the offences u/s 18, 35 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act 2004 and section 120, 124-A, r/w 34 of I.P.C. requires sanction. I had specifically directed the learned A.P.P. to make submissions as it was noticed that the sanction for the prosecution of these offences was not obtained. Learned A.P.P. has made following submissions by reply filed today as under: “1-That as per directions of this Hon'ble Court by order dated 22.4.2008, regarding factual position, whether the sanction was granted by the Department of Home. Govt. of Maharashtra, as per section 35 and 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Amendment Act or not. The answering respondent submits that the inspite of timely sending proposal to the Government the sanction is yet not received. 2- The charge sheet is filed by investigating officer awaiting the sanction from Government. The Magistrate should not have taken cognizance till the sanction received from Government is filed with charge sheet. The provisions under the Act does not prohibit the Investigating officer to file Charge sheet within time. Only the cognizance needs to be taken after receipt of sanction from Govt. The proposal for sanction is pending before the Government.” Applicants have been arrested on 18.10.2007. Charge sheet is filed on 14.1.2008. Perhaps at the time of filing of the charge sheet the respondent would have intended to secure sanction. But it is still not obtained. The case appears to have been committed to the court of Sessions. Sessions Court has rejected bail application of the applicants . The position that emerges now is that the sanction for prosecution for the offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Amendment Act & Section 124-A of I.P.C. is not filed on record. Therefore, it is not permissible for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and therefore, ex-facie it appears that taking of cognizance of these offences for want of sanction, not proper. Why the sanction is still not obtained is not known. Applicants have been prosecuted for the offences u/s 142, 147 of the Indian Railways Act as well as section 120 of the I.P.C. The offence punishable u/s 120 of the I.P.C. is punishable by 1/4th of punishment provided for the main offence. Offence under section 142 of the Railways Act is punishable with three months and section 147 of the Indian Railways Act is punishable with six months. In such circumstances, the bail to the applicants cannot be denied. However, considering the fact that the allegations levelled against them are serious and sanction is still awaited from the government, it would be necessary to impose conditions while releasing them on bail. Hence each of the applicants be released on bail on furnishing surety and PRB to the satisfaction of the lower court of Rs.15000/- subject to conditions that he shall attend the trial regularly and shall not commit any offence. Bail in trial court. Application stands disposed of. Hamdast granted. JUDGE smp.