After an accused is released on Bail And some serious offences are invoked at a Later point of Time, there is no question Of seeking any Cancellation Of Bail: High Court of Bombay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6485 OF 2020 Sunita w o Late Pradip Thakar Age : 45 years Occ : Household original resident of A p Bavi Tq.Washi Dist.Osmanabad Presently residing at A 3 Pranayraj Garden Gokulnagar Dhanori Pune Tq. & Dist.Pune VERSUS The State of Maharashtra General Administration Department Mantralaya Mumbai 32 Through its Secretary Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division Through it’s Member Secretary The Manager Government Photozincographic Press and Photographic Expert to Government Maharashtra State 5 Photozinco Path Pune 411001 Tq. & Dist. Pune Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Yeramwar Sushant C. AGP for the Respondents 1 to 3 State : Shri S.K. Tambe CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE S.G. MEHARE JJ Oral Judgment: DATE : 20th July 2021 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties The petitioner is the widow of an employee namely Pradip Thakar who belonged to “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe community. He was issued with the tribe certificate by the Executive Magistrate Kallam. On 01.03.1982 he was appointed as “Chaukidar” a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category with respondent No.3. He was promoted as “Supervisor” in 2009. He moved his application for seeking validation of his tribe claim through the respondent No.3 Employer to respondent No.2 Committee on 04.07.2013. Before the Committee could decide his claim he passed away on 06.11.2019 while being in employment In the above backdrop the petitioner widow moved applications dated 24.12.2019 02.03.2020 and 24.08.2020 to the respondent authorities seeking release of the family pension and payment of all retiral benefits like provident fund gratuity leave encashment medical reimbursement overtime etc.. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent No.3 orally intimated her that as her husband was appointed on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category and since he did not submit his validity certificate steps to grant family pension cannot be taken until such validity certificate is produced. The petitioner then made request applications to respondent No.2 Committee on 08.07.2020 and 27.07.2020 seeking a decision on her late husband’s pending claim On 05.08.2020 respondent No.2 Committee closed the file of the petitioner’s husband since he had passed away It is further contended in the petition that the petitioner’s daughter namely Shweta had made an application on 08.07.2020 to respondent No.3 praying for compassionate appointment. By the communication dated 10.08.2020 respondent No.3 informed her that as her father had not tendered the validity certificate of belonging to Thakar tribe her application for compassionate appointment needs to be kept pending in view of the Government Resolution dated 15.06.2020 The learned AGP submits that this petition is not an adversarial litigation to the Government. As the husband of the petitioner did not tender the validity certificate the respondent authorities are helpless This Court had issued notice on 22.09.2020. On 17.02.2021 this Court recording the contentions of the petitioner had directed the respondents to process the papers for grant of provisional pension as the claim of the petitioner for family pension could not be ignored We find that this Court has delivered a judgment at Aurangabad on 12.08.2010 in Writ Petition No.3718 1994 filed by Prakash Fulchand Barwal since deceased through his Legal Heirs Smt.Shobhabai Barwal and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. In the said judgment this Court noted that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon against the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. The Committee had invalidated the claim of the petitioner by order dated 30.09.1989. On account of such invalidation the service of the deceased petitioner was terminated vide order dated 10.12.1989. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of invalidation which was dismissed by the concerned appellate authority on 27.10.1993. Thereafter the deceased petitioner had preferred Writ Petition before this Court While dealing with the claim of Prakash Barwalthis Court recorded in paragraphs 4 5 and 6 as under : During pendency of the writ petition the original petitioner has died and his legal heirs are brought on record. Since the original petitioner has already died the question regarding his claim of belonging to scheduled tribe does not arise. The legal heirs of the original petitioner have restricted the claim in the present petition only for grant of family The petitioner was originally appointed on 18.07.1988. By virtue of interim order passed in the year 1994 the petitioner was directed to be reinstated. The original petitioner has died on 05.12.2003. Considering the date of appointment of the original petitioner to be 11 18.07.1988 the original petitioner has rendered the service of more than 15 years. As such the petitioner’s widow would be entitled to the family pension. We accordingly extend the benefit of family pension to the widow of the original petitioner i.e. present petitioner No.1 Smt.Shobhabai w o Prakash 6. We therefore dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to give the benefits of family pension to the widow of the original petitioner from the date of his death i.e 05.12.2003. The said benefit be extended to the widow of the petitioner namely Smt.Shobhabai w o Prakash Barwal within a period of six months from today along with the arrears. No order as to In the case in hand there is no dispute that the deceased Pradip Thakar had joined duties on 01.03.1982 and he had passed away on 06.11.2019 after putting in 37 years in employment His widow would therefore be entitled for family pension In the light of the above this Writ Petition is partly allowed as under: Respondent No.3 would process the pension papers for grant of family pension to the petitioner and the arrears of family pension shall be paid and payment of regular monthly pension shall commence on or before 30.10.2021 Insofar as the provident fund payments are concerned the petitioner will have to approach the Provident Fund authorities for release of such funds and in the event of there being no other legal impediment the Provident Fund authorities would also do the needful on or before 30.10.2021 Insofar as the gratuity leave encashment medical reimbursement and overtime bills are concerned respondent No.3 shall do the needful and clear such dues as per rules. In the event of there being any dispute with regard to either of these payments the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the statutory authorities or avail of a remedy as may be prescribed in law Considering our conclusion and the decision of this Court in the matter of Prakash Barwalthe application of the daughter of the deceased namely Shweta seeking compensation appointment shall be considered by the respondent authorities as per the procedure laid down in law Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms kps (S.G. MEHARE J RAVINDRA V. GHUGE J

Summary: The accused who has been granted bail is required to surrender and again apply for bail under the newly added offenses. A Single-Judge Bench comprising of Justice Mangesh S. Patil adjudicating the matter of NANA @ NARSING VISHWASRAO NAYAK AND OTHERS V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.221 OF 2021) dealt with the issue of whether to grant bail or not. In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the regular bail granted to them under the provision of Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been canceled, post a request put up by the prosecution, to add, in addition to the earlier sections under the Indian Penal Code, the offenses punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 after a sanction under Section 21 of the MCOC Act was received. The Petitioner submitted that the petitioners were granted a regular bail and in the absence of any supervening circumstance or a breach of terms and conditions subject to which the bail was granted, it could not have been canceled. He would submit that merely because the provision of the MCOC Act was invoked at a later point of time that would not constitute a supervening circumstance. Liberty ought not to have been curtailed in the manner in which it had been done. There are circumstances to indicate that the petitioner is being falsely involved under a serious charge. There is material to prima facie demonstrate that the sanctioning authority was perhaps hand-in-gloves with the original informant. A tainted sanction is not a sanction in the eye of law. The Respondents strongly oppose the Writ Petitions and submit that invoking a serious charge at a later point of time is indeed a supervening circumstance, the cognizance of which ought to be taken for canceling the bail. It was also pointed out by the Respondents in such a fact situation where some aggravated offenses are invoked at a later point of time after granting of bail, a relief of cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required and only permission to arrest the accused who has been granted bail is contemplated. The court held that in such a fact situation where some aggravated offenses are invoked at a later point of time after granting of bail, a relief of cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required, and only permission to arrest the accused who has been granted bail is contemplated. Also, it relied on that, the accused who has been granted bail is required to surrender and again apply for bail under the newly added offenses. They would therefore submit that though there could be some error in articulating the prayer in the application whereby bail was sought to be canceled, the procedure being handmaid of justice, the impugned order can be read to mean that what was asked before the learned Judge and what was actually granted was merely a permission to arrest the petitioners.