1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO: 691 /2009 (Rupesh Namdeorao Lade vs. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr Anil Mardikar Adv. for applicant Mr Anup Parihar, APP. for Respondent C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 27th August, 2009. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, at length. 2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 270/2008 registered at Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola for offence punishable under sections 409, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the work of construction of “Gharkool” for the benefit of tribal communities was undertaken by the applicant and the President of Gayatri Gram Vikas Sanstha, pursuant to the Work Order issued by the Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project on 19.4.2007. The Work Order was for 64 Gharkool with costs of Rs. 60,000/- per Gharkool, for which an amount of Rs.12,80,000/- was paid by way of first installment on 5.5.2007 to the Society. This Gharkool was admeasuring 10 x 20 ft. It is contended that the amounts were released on the progress of the work and production of the certificate of Sarpanch and there was no criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust by the applicant. 3. The learned APP stoutly objected the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that earlier, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,Akola had rejected anticipatory bail on merits. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that the construction was to be carried out under the supervision of the Project Officer. The applicant had requested for joint inspection for preparation of list of incomplete work; but the Project 2 Officer did not cooperate. The applicant also offered to deposit of amount if valuation by the Additional Tribal Commissioner is done and if it is found that the construction done is of less value. The applicant also expressed difficulty that the Police Patil, by name, Bhaurao Pralhad Kolhe had not produced the caste certificate. This fact was brought to the notice of the Project Officer and, therefore, construction was stayed till the production of the caste certificate. 4. In Criminal Application Nos. 689 and 690 both of 2009 (heard today), I had directed the applicants who are Government officials to cooperate with the investigation by attending interrogation during day- time for a period of seven days initially and, thereafter, as and when required. Under these circumstances, the present applicant who is actually responsible for construction of Gharkool for tribals must cooperate with the investigation by attending custodial interrogation, at least for three days. It is felt necessary because the effective interrogation of a person who is primarily responsible for construction of houses for tribals, may yield valuable and material information which may otherwise remained concealed. In my opinion, therefore, custodial interrogation would be more useful in order to elicit material information as to who really are involved in the offence of criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation. 5. An useful reference can be made to the ruling in State vs. Anil Sharma reported in (1997) 7 SCC page 187 wherein it was held that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under section 438 of Cr.P.C. In Abdul Ansari vs. State of Maharashtra 2000 SCC (Cri) 1505, the Apex Court had directed surrender of the accused before the police in order to enable the I.O. to complete the interrogation of the accused and upon completion of interrogation and recovery of material, if any, accused were granted benefit of bail, of course, subject to certain conditions. Thus, taking a cue from the said rulings, in my opinion, the Court may fix the period of custodial 3 interrogation of the accused and thereafter may grant benefit of bail to ensure that the Investigating Officer shall complete the investigation so as to book the real culprits. For these reasons and in the facts and circumstances revealed so far, I pass the following order :- (i) the interim pre-arrest order protecting the applicant is vacated; (ii) the applicant shall surrender before the Investigating officer forthwith. (iii) the Investigating Officer shall complete the interrogation within a period of three days from the date and time of surrender of the applicant/accused, inclusive of recovery/discovery of any material object; (iv) upon expiry of three days, the applicant be released upon furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with with one or more sureties in the equal amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, provided further that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when necessary; (v) he shall cooperate with the investigating agency and shall inform his fixed address with telephone/cellphone number, if any, to the I.O. and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner (vi) he shall attend the court on each date of hearing, unless specifically exempted by the Court. (vii) if it is found that the valuation of the Gharkool houses is less after evaluation by Executive Engineer (B & C) concerned, the amount of difference shall be payable by the contractor who had received the amounts from the Government. from time to time. 6. It is made clear that if there is any violation of the conditions stipulated herein-above, the Investigating Officer will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. 4 7. Steno copy allowed. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE. sahare