IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 300/08 Bhagwant Narayan Sakharkar vs. 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. CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J DATED : 31 st MARCH, 2008. Heard Shri Mahesh Rai, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri Fulzele, A.P.P. for respondent. Interim order was passed on 25th January, 2008. The question is whether that order should be confirmed. It is the contention of the learned A.P.P. that the applicant was not entitled to issue the permits to the farmers under the scheme. It is also his contention that the applicant has issued these permits without verifying the eligibility & even to dead persons. As against this, learned counsel for the applicant states that the B.D.O. had directed the applicant to issue the permits to the farmers as they were getting aggressive and therefore, those permits were issued. It is informed that all these permits were issued on 28.5.2007 when the applicant had joined his duties after medical leave. He has also pointed out that the statement of issuance of permits and consequent disposal of issue etc., under the scheme was signed by B.D.O. also. In these circumstances, the involvement of the applicant, though alleged, cannot be said to be substantiated, attributing intention of deliberate issuance of false permits to the farmers. Of course, these observations are in prima facie view of the matter, but then in such case, the interim anticipatory bail has to be confirmed. Accordingly it is confirmed as follows. In the event of arrest of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the I.P.C., he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R.Bond of Rs. 20,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Hinganghat as and when directed by I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence. It is made clear that the prosecution may apply for cancellation of this anticipatory bail if it has some concrete evidence regarding the intention of the applicant to issue false permits to the farmers and even in the name of dead persons and those persons who were not agriculturist. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Rvj.