1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3632 OF 2011 1 Jagan s/o Santrao Shamgir, 2 Janardhan s/o Gangadhar Chandwade, 3 Bhimrao Baburao Gaikwad ...Applicants VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri S.P.Tilwe, advocate for applicant nos. 1 to 3 Shri D.R.Korde, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 14th September, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Perused the investigation papers which were made available for perusal purpose and heard learned counsel for the parties finally. 2 2 This is an application preferred by applicant nos. 1 to 3 seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in C.R. No. I-73 of 2011, registered at Maujpuri police station, District Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 135 and 150 of the Indian Electricity Act. 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the officer of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. It is alleged that the said Electricity Company had given the work of fixing pipes and laying lines to one Company from Hyderabad. It is also alleged that the supply of electricity was to be made under the scheme of Rajiv Gandhi Rural Electricity Programme and the electricity connections were to be given to the persons living below poverty line thereunder. However, it is alleged that the officers of the Electricity Company noticed that at least in five cases from Maujpuri, the connections of electricity were given and theft of electricity was committed. It is further alleged that the connections were not given to the persons entitled to such 3 connections under the said scheme. The allegations are also made that at other places also poles were erected and supply was made. Moreover, allegations were made against the Sub- contractor Shri Mandlik, who was appointed by the Company, to which the work was allotted by the Electricity Company. The applicants are the farmers, who took the electricity connections illegally. 4 At the out set, it is to be noted that the application preferred by the co-accused Kasabai Gangaram Mohite for anticipatory bail was rejected by this court by order, dated 5.8.2011. The case of present applicants stand on the similar footing of the case of said co-accused Kasabai, and therefore, present application preferred by the applicants also deserves to be rejected. 5 Besides, learned counsel for the applicants made submission that the applicants are prepared to deposit the amount of Rs.6,000/- per applicant and urged that present application be allowed. However, it is seen from the order passed in the application preferred by the co-accused Kasabai 4 that the submission was made before this court while arguing the said application that said offences are compoundable and so the relief can be given, but this court did not accept the said submission, observing that “Government Departments and Corporations are getting the work done by outsourcing and if such incidents are not checked in initial stage, such incidents would increase and there would be apprehension in respect of the policy by which the work is done by way of outsourcing.” 6 Hence, in view of the said position, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants in the present application also cannot be accepted. 7 Having the comprehensive view of the matter and considering the accusations made against the applicants and nature and gravity thereof, apparently, there is no possibility of false implication of the applicants in the alleged crime, and hence, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is imperative for further progress in the investigation in proper perspective, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 5 8 In the result, present application lacks merits, and therefore, stands dismissed and same is disposed of finally. 9 The above observations are prima facie in nature and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding the same on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap3632.11