1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1019 OF 2010 Dr. Shaheen Ismail Khan Azad v. St. of Maharashtra through P.S.O. P.S. City Kotwali, Akola. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. J.M. Gandhi Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Kale, A.P.P. for Res. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. RESERVED ON : 29 th JULY, _2010. PRONOUNCED ON : 04 th AUGUST, 2010. In support of the application Mr.Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant, argued that by virtue of the subsequent events, inasmuch as the amounts which were paid to the appointees have been deposited with the Corporation by all the 12 appointees except one. He then argued that the applicant had as a matter of fact protested in making the payments but since there was an order in respect of two persons made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal directing making of payment to them, she signed the cheques in fear of contempt in relation to the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The applicant is, therefore, in the light of these events, entitled to be released on anticipatory bail on this second application, though the 2 first one was rejected. 2. Per contra, Mr.Kale learned A.P.P., opposed the application and prayed for its dismissal. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, I find no ground to interfere since the same grounds were raised when this Court decided the earlier application. The fact that the beneficiaries paid back the amount to the Corporation cannot be said to be a subsequent event since this Court had made order in their cases to deposit the amount received by them with the Corporation, while making common order. In other words, the said event or undertaking given by those beneficiaries to pay back the amount was very much before the Court, when the earlier application was filed and rejected. To reiterate, it is seen that the applicant had signed the cheques with Umesh Kothikar and had she an intention to protest or resist the payment excepting in two persons where the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was in force, she would not have signed those cheques and that too bearer cheques, and would have made complaint to the higher officers had the said Umesh Kothikar pressurised her. The fact that she signed the bearer cheques contrary to the rules in lacs of rupees shows that she is prima facie guilty of the offence in question. In the result, I find no merit in this application and the same stands dismissed. JUDGE 3 /TA/