1 Cri-A-41-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2011 Samarth Dayanand Maharaj @ Ashok Rajaram Shankhapal ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Ganesh Gole, Advocate, for the applicant. Ms. A.T.Javeri, APP, for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 17th February, 2011. P.C. 1. Leave to amend the surname of the applicant. Amendment be effected immediately. 2. The applicant seeks to be released on bail in Crime No.47/2010 registered at Chauni Police Station, Nashik under Sec. 420, 406, 467,468, 471 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. 3. The applicant is the principal and founder of Janglidas Maharaj High School at Kokane. The complainant Anna Bhaga Kanade was employed in that school as a teacher in the year 2000 and his services were terminated in the year 2 Cri-A-41-11.sxw 2009. After termination of his service, said Anna Kanade filed a complaint before the Court alleging that in the year 2000, the present applicant had received amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from him for giving employment, but his name was never recommended for confirmation in service. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed police to investigate the case under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and accordingly offence came to be registered with the police station. The learned counsel for the applicant points out that while in the complaint before the Court, said Anna Kanade had alleged that he had paid Rs.1,60,000/- in the year 2000 for getting employment in the school, while in his appeal before the School Tribunal he had alleged that he had paid Rs.50,000/- to the applicant in the year 2002 as expenses for getting confirmation of his service and thereafter from time to time the applicant had demanded money and he had received total amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-. Besides the discrepancy in his allegations in the complaint before the Magistrate and the appeal before the School Tribunal, it appears that there was a long delay of about 7 - 9 years in filing the complaint. The applicant was in police custody for some time. Now he is in judicial custody. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason for the continued judicial custody pending the trial. 4. Therefore, the applicant be released on his executing P.R. of Rs. 3 Cri-A-41-11.sxw 20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount with condition that he shall not tamper with prosecution evidence. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)