1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2/2011 (1.Nagorao s/o Malharrao Bendrikar and Ors. Vs. The State of Mah.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Gajanan Kadam, Adv. for applicants; Mr.NB Patil, APP for State. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 19 th January, 2011. ... 1) Heard. 2) The learned APP is equipped with the investigation papers. 3) The applicants, based on prosecution in Crime No.251/2009 for an offence under Section 395 of IPC, were in custody for 22 days. The grievance is, for the period the applicants were not in service, their salaries are withdrawn from the disbursement officials, this is so done by fabricating the record. 4) The learned Counsel for the applicants/accused submits that the applicant No.1 though is Chairman of the institution, is a whistle-blower against the atrocities of the police of Bhagyanagar, Nanded and has suffered and paid for the same by the present 2 prosecution. 5) He informs, the complainant is a neighbour of applicant no.1 and civil disputes in relation to the property are at its peak. Taking advantage of the situation, the complainant, a stooge for the prosecution initiated at the instance of police. 6) Having gone through the investigation papers, I find though at some stage it is said that fabricated salary bills are submitted, however, the salary statement of April-2010 (page 56) illustrate that excess amount, received by the applicant is either deposited/credited by the applicant no.4 himself. The excess amount thus is not now lying with the applicants/accused. The audit of the institution is not yet commenced. The Zilla Parishad has even not taken any action against the applicants/accused. Though the police have informed, applicant no.1 having faced several other prosecutions, however for the present matter, custody of any of the applicants/accused is not desired as they are permanent residents of the area, gainfully employed and applicant no.1 is an Editor of the newspaper and also Chairman of the educational institution. 7) In the result, interim protection dated 3 6.1.2011 is made absolute with the condition of attendance. The attendance to remain in force up to 31st May, 2011. The Investigator or the SHO of the concerned Police Station shall, without any demur, furnish acknowledgment to the applicants/accused, if they attend the police station in compliance of the order of the Court. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/