1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1752 of 2010 (Rakesh Diwakar Magurwar ..VS.. State of Mah., through P.S.O., P.S., Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli) Criminal Application No. 1753 of 2010 (Anant Govindrao Dev ..VS.. State of Mah., through P.S.O., P.S., Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli) Criminal Application No. 1754 of 2010 (Pranjay Manohar Wadettiwar ..VS.. State of Mah., through P.S.O., P.S., Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli) Criminal Application No. 1755 of 2010 (Prakash Sitaram Bhandarwar ..VS.. State of Mah., through P.S.O., P.S., Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli) Criminal Application No. 1758 of 2010 (Suresh Shrihari Yngantiwar ..VS.. State of Mah., through P.S.O., P.S., Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli) Criminal Application No. 1764 of 2010 (Rushi Shankar Madavi ..VS.. State of Mah., through P.S.O., P.S., Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. G.N.Khanzode, Advocate for the applicant in all the cases. Mr. M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 26 th Novem ber , 2010 . Heard. By these applications, the applicants have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 3007/2010, registered at Police Station, Aheri for the offence under Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent-State has filed reply in all the matters and opposed the applications. These are the applicants who are forest employees working as Forester Guards and Range Forest Officers in Gadchiroli district. 2 Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the allegations levelled against these applicants i.e. the set of circumstances in the present applications are similar to the set of circumstances in Criminal Application No. 537/2010 and other connected applications, which were considered by this Court (Coram : A.H.Joshi, J.) in detail and granted bail to those applicants vide order dated 08/4/2010. By said order, this court has also specified the nature of allegations levelled against those applicants, including Lower Rank Officers as well Higher Rank Officers. While appreciating the material, this court has observed at paragraph nos. 14, 15, 16 & 17 that - “14. In the present case, nothing clinching is brought forward by the investigation machinery. It is hereby asserted by prosecution that the present applicants are involved. what is expressed is in the form of apprehension of doubt about the applicants’ involvement in the offence. Case diary also does not disclose anything concrete, which may have led to the apprehension. 15. In spite of discreet scrutiny in the process of hearing, learned APP is not able to pinpoint any specific imputation against any of the applicants, which could even by bare description would constitute commission of an offence adequate enough to register an offence and which would, in turn, empower the police to arrest the concerned without warrant. 16. In absence of such description of commission of offence consisting of ingredients of offence under some sections of any Criminal Law, even without going into worthiness and truthfulness thereof, it would be wholly unjust to deny to the applicant’s protection sought for by them. 17. No allegation, whatsoever individually against each amongst the applicants at least prima facie involving them in offence whatsoever, is shown.” This court has also observed at paragraph 20 that - “20. As this Court has noticed that at present the Investigating Agency is searching for the exact offence and 3 offenders, in the event, the Investigating Officers are able to lay hands on specific persons and specific acts, including present applicants, and register independent offence, the powers available to them in that event as to arrest would remain unaffected by this order” Though, by making above observations, this Court had granted liberty to the investigating agency to proceed further, if the prosecution agency lay hands on a specific person and specific acts and register independent offence, it seems that there is no break- through available with the investigating agency so as to lay their hands on a specific person and specific acts. Learned Advocate has also placed on record a copy of order dated 06/5/2010 passed by this Court (Coram : A.H.Joshi, J.) in Criminal Application No. 676/2010 arising out of similar set of circumstances, in which anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant. The submission of learned Advocate for the applicants that in view of the orders dated 08/4/2010 and 06/5/2010, passed by this Court, the case of all the applicants is to be considered on the ground of parity, is worth considering. I find substantial merit in the submission of learned Advocate for the applicants. In the result, all the applications are allowed. In the event of arrest in Crime No. 3007/2010, registered with Police Station, Aheri, the applicants be released on bail on furnishing a Personal Bond and a Solvent Surety in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each. They shall co-operate with the police in the process of investigation, interrogation etc. and shall attend the Investigating Officer on every 1st and 3rd Sunday of the month between 9.00 am to 12.00 noon, till filing of the charge sheet and thereafter as and when called by the police. 4 The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence nor commit any act such as contacting the prosecution witnesses or pressurize them. The applicants to submit their residential address and contact numbers such as phone/mobile numbers to the investigating agency. In case the applicants are moving out of the area of police station, Aheri, they shall inform the police station about their visit to other place. In case of breach of these conditions, the prosecution agency to take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law. JUDGE Diwale