Acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 27 OF 2009 Anil Rammohan Saroj ...Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. --- Mr.K.H. Giri, for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for the State. Mr.Subodh Desai, for Respondent nos.2 to 4. --- CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 7TH JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1.. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Petitioner is the first informant. On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner, the second to fourth respondents are being prosecuted for offences under section 406, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Peneal Code. It is not in dispute that the 2nd to 4th respondents were granted anticipatory bail which was operative till the filing of charge sheet. The charge sheet was filed on 3rd December 2008. On the very day the said respondents were arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate The learned Magistrate by a short order granted bail in their favour in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each subject to the said respondents executing the surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gajanan Agarwal Versus State of Orissa (2006 AIR SC 3298). He submitted that as held by the Apex : 2 : court the learned Magistrate ought to assigned reasons while granting bail. He also placed reliance on another decision on the same point in the case of Deepak Singchi Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.(AIR 2007 Supreme Court 3064) as well as on the decision in the case of Sallauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra (1996 CRI. L.J. 1368). He further submitted that after the charge sheet was filed, the court ought to have examined the material on record forming part of the charge sheet before granting bail. He submitted that this is a case where as reflected from the charge sheet, an amount more than three crores is the subject matter of offence. His submission is that in view of material forming part of charge sheet, bail could not have been granted. In any event, the bail amount of Rs.10,000/- fixed by the learned Magistrate is extremely on lower side considering the gravity of the offence and material brought on record by filing charge sheet. 3. I have considered the submissions. By filing this Petition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is not in dispute that anticipatory bail was granted to the 2nd to 4th respondents in the sum of Rs.10,000/-each. There is no allegation that the accused misused the facility of bail or committed any breach of terms and conditions on which anticipatory bail was granted. It is not the case made out against the said respondents that they have not cooperated for investigation. 4. On this background, the learned Magistrate was justified in : 3 granting bail in the same amount on which anticipatory bail was granted. It is true that reasons have not been assigned by the learned Magistrate. However, considering the facts which are narrated above, this is not a case for interference especially when no case has been made out of the mis-use of the facility of pre-arrest bail which was granted on 9th December 2007. 5. Hence, the Petition is rejected. However, hearing of the case be expedited. JUDGE