1appln-1030-10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No.1030/2010 Sushil Jyotiprasad Tandon v. State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr S. R. Borulkar i/by Manoj Patil for the applicant. Mr K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the State. Mr Laxman a/w Ms Kavita Anchan i/by M.V.Kini & Co. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 22nd JUNE, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant, apprehending his arrest in CR No.11/2010 registered with Economic Offences Wing, Unit – III Mumbai for offences punishable under sections 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120-B of I.P.C. 2. Present applicant is retired Chief Engineer (Distribution) from the services of B.E.S.T. First Information Report (F.I.R.) in the present matter was lodged on 13.2.2010 for the alleged offences of cheating and using the official position to get 2appln-1030-10 pecuniary advantage to the third person and which took place sometime from October,2006 till October, 2008. The dates are very significant. Allegedly, there is also charge for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C.along with penal sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. In the present matter, there are total six accused. Out of them two were already arrested and released on bail after few days custody. A Contractor from whom the electronic meters were purchased by the B.E.S.T has preferred an application for anticipatory bail and which is pending before the Sessions Court at Mumbai. Allegations against the present applicant are that when he took over as Chief Engineer (Distribution) from 1.8.2007, he allegedly suppressed the earlier proposal which was rejected by the earlier officer and it was concerning Indian Cab Corporation. Said Indian Cab Corporation is also one of the accused in the present matter. It is also the allegation that in the matter of purchase of some electronic meters, in order to get the billing for electricity usage by the customers, earlier there was an approval for the specifications of the meter concerning “Three slots scalable to Four” and it was finally approved by the B.E.S.T Committee. However, on 14.5.2007 the approval was only for the purpose of meters having “Three slots” and not for Three slots scalable to Four”. This aspect has been much emphasized by learned Senior counsel for the applicant. Moreover, he has submitted that prior to, the taking over the charge as Chief Engineer Distribution, there were earlier approvals and the applicant has no role in such approval of specifications. It is also submitted that at the most he could be asked to attend the E.O.W.office and give his statement which in fact he had done during the pendency of this application vide earlier order passed by this Court. 3appln-1030-10 4. Considering the above, in the opinion of this Court, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant, who is retired from the services of B.E.S.T, is not warranted and in that event a relief till filing of the charge sheet can be granted to the applicant on certain conditions of attendance to the Investigating agency and co-operating with the investigation. Hence, the the following order. :ORDER: (a) Criminal application No. 1030/2010 is allowed. (b) In the event of arrest of the applicant in C.R. No. 11/2010 registered with Economic Offences Wing, Unit No. III, Mumbai, he shall be released on bail on executing a P.R.bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount . © On availing bail the applicant shall attend concerned police station once in a week on every Monday and Friday between 10-00 a.m. to 12.00 noon till filing of the charge sheet. (d) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigating agency. (e) It is open for the applicant to apply for regular bail after filing of the charge sheet. 5. Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J)