1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.148/2011 (Arvind Dhonduji Shrirame .vrs. State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. Sunil V. Manohar, Advocate i/b Mr. A.A. Naik, Advocate for applicant, Mr. S.B. Ahirkar, APP for non-applicant/State. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : MARCH 25, 2011 Heard. The prayer for bail made by the applicant/accused in connection with Crime No.13/2011 registered with Durgapur Police Station, District – Chandrapur for offence under sections 379, 511, 406, 409 r/w 34 of IPC, is objected by the prosecution on the count that involvement of applicant is borne out in commission of the theft of diesel from Indian Oil Tadali Depot. It is urged that the same is borne from the material revealing that one of the truck which was used for taking out the diesel out of company was fitted with a fitting in such a manner that as per the desire of driver of the said truck the diesel to the tune of 200 litres could have been easily passed surreptitiously in the service tank of the truck without anybody noticing the same. It is urged that the applicant has inspected one truck on 21.1.2011 and on 17.1.2011. It is urged that the 2 investigation is in progress and the precise quantity of the diesel stolen due to connivance/assistance/aid of the applicant is yet to be determined. It is urged that investigation being in progress, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the applicant is in custody since 26.2.2011. It is urged that considering the manner in which the theft is said to have been committed, it is difficult to accept that investigating agency could not determine the precise amount of diesel stolen. It is urged that the said facet could have been easily determined as the Corporation is having all the record regarding the trips made by the truck for carrying out the diesel out of the depot. It is urged hence merely because of lethargy on part of investigating officer the bail should not be denied to the applicant, as he is not charged for commission of offence punishable for an imprisonment for a period more than 3 years. It is urged that the applicant being earlier in the service, the condition can be imposed for staying him away from the relevant area for nullifying the apprehensions expressed that grant of bail to him would adversely affect the investigation in progress and/or would facilitate tampering of prosecution evidence. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced and having due regard to the fact of investigation being incomplete, still the prayer for bail deserves consideration having regard to the period for which the applicant is in custody i.e. about more than one month and having regard to the material so far collected during the investigation about his involvement. Needless to add that the perusal of the say filed by the prosecution and the material referred therein does not transcend beyond any other act committed by the applicant except his failure to detect the fittings made to the truck during the inspection allegedly made by him. Needless to add that considering the say filed by the prosecution at 3 the most the involvement of the applicant prima facie can be said to be that of abettor of the offences allegedly committed. Such a conclusion prima facie emerges as the said say does not reveal any other acts (other than referred hereinabove) allegedly committed by the applicant alike repeated receipt of the fruits of the crime which was said to be in progress continuously and/or himself being mastermind for the same, his prayer will not deserve altogether rejection. However, considering the enormity of the crime said to have committed regarding a public property and the investigation being in progress in order to give fair chance to investigating agency to ascertain further role, if any, played by the applicant, at present stage, it will be proper to consider the prayer for specified period only for balancing right of liberty of the applicant and that of the investigating agency to investigate such a crime without any hindrance. Presently the applicant is directed to be released on interim bail up-till 25.4.2011 in connection with said crime upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two separate solvent sureties in the like amount and subject to the conditions that applicant - (i) after his release on bail, shall stay outside Chandrapur City, shall intimate his place of abode to the investigating officer, shall not change the same without the permission of the Court, shall also attend the local Police Station within whose jurisdiction he would be staying in between 11 am and 2 pm every day up-till 25.4.2011; (ii) shall not attempt to contact the prosecution witnesses nor shall indulge in any activity of tampering prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not commit any offence while being on interim bail granted by this order. Liberty to the applicant to apply for extension of order so also to the prosecution for cancellation in event of involvement of 4 the applicant being borne any higher offences other than the one for which he has been granted interim bail. The application stands disposed of. JUDGE Gulande