1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3437 OF 2009 Hanmant s/o Narayan Phad - Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Anr. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.PR Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Applicant; Mrs.AV Gondhalekar,APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 16th December, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard Mr.Katneshwar and learned APP. 2) The request of the applicant/accused, in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to release him on pre-arrest bail in Crime No.60/2009, rooted vide Criminal Application no.2684/2009, was rejected by order dated 14th August, 2009. However, at such time his son, Anil s/o Hanuman Phad, who stood on different pedestal, got the 2 benefit and was directed to be released in the event of arrest, but the present applicant – Hanuman was refused such exercise of discretion. 3) Mr.Katneshwarkar, during the Course of submissions, states that the change in the circumstance in the matter is, there is recovery of the amount and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the present applicant/accused is not desirable. 4) It is incorrect that mere recovery of the amount by itself will be resolving the controversy. There are different colour and complexion attached to the matter. It was in concert, prima facie, that the amount of the different labourers was distributed amongst the office-bearers/employees, making inadequate/less payment to the labourers, who had served the department and were serving under the employment guarantee scheme (EGS). In the situation, I do not see that there is any change of circumstance in the matter. 3 5) The next contention, that the applicant/accused is a Government servant, though is coined, appears to be rosy. However, it could not be taken as a cozy affair, as it shows the clout, the applicant has with the concerned Investigator to get himself away with fetters since 14th August, 2009. The application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/cran3437.090