Criminal Application No.2971 of 2007,Criminal Application No.2977 of 2007,Criminal Application No.2990 of 2007,Criminal Application No.2996 of 2007,Criminal Application No. 3005 of 2007,Criminal Application No. 3006 of 2007,Criminal Application No. 3021 of 2007,Criminal Application No. 3025 of 2007,Criminal Application No. 3041 of 2007,Criminal Application No. 3070 of 2007,Criminal Application No. 3073 of 2007

30th April, 2008

Petitioner Counsel: Shri. R. M. PATWARDHAN, S. P. BHANDARKAR, A. S. MARDIKAR, A. S. KILOR, Mrs. M. M. SHESH, S/Shri. J. C. SHUKLA, C. V. KALE, S. B. TALEKAR, V. M. DESHPANDE, S. P. DHARMADHIKARI , ABHAY SAMBRE

Cases Cited:
Shri. Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, (1980)2 SCC 565 [Para 16]
Jagannath Ramchandra Biyan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1981 Mh.L.J. 791 [Para 16]
Devidas Raghu Naik Vs. State, 1989 Cri.L.J. 252 [Para 16]
Joginder Kumar Vs. Stat of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1349 [Para 16]
Rafique Abdul Malik Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997 ALL MR (Cri) 962=1997 Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 712 [Para 16]
Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2005)7 SCC 226 [Para 16]
Bharat Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2379 (S.C.)=(2004)1 Mh.L.J. 1079 [Para 16]
Narinderjit Singh Sahni Vs. Union of India, 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 430 (S.C.)=AIR 2001 SC 3810 [Para 17]
State of M.P Vs. Ram Kishna Balothia, AIR 1995 SC 1198 [Para 17]
Shri. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, (1980)2 SCC 565 [Para 17]
Dukhishyam Benupani Vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria, (1998)1 SCC 52 [Para 17]
Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay Vs. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora, 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 347 (S.C.)=(1999)5 SCC 720 [Para 17]
Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of W.B., 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1097 (S.C.)=(2005)4 SCC 303 [Para 17]
State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal J. Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 365 [Para 17]
State of H.P. Vs. Pirthi Chand, (1996)2 SCC 37 [Para 17]
Harshad S. Mehta Vs. Union of India, 1992 Cri.L.J. 4032 [Para 17]
Harjinder Singh Vs. Karnail Singh, 1998 ALL MR (Cri) 824 (S.C.)=1998 Cri.L.J. 2556 [Para 17]
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain, 1998 ALL MR (Cri) 654 (S.C.)=(1998)2 SCC 105 [Para 17]
State rep. by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997)7 SCC 187 [Para 17]
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. P. V. Prabhakar Rao, (1997)6 SCC 647 [Para 17]
Muraleedharan Vs. State of Kerla, (2001)4 SCC 638 [Para 17]
Natvarbhai Pitamberbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, 2004 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 19 [Para 17]
Mr. Abhay R. Sinha Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1999 ALL MR (Cri) 458 [Para 17]
State of Maharashtra Vs. Satyakumar Kamalkishore Nashine, 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3224 [Para 17]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- All these applications are for grant of anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As they arise out of the same offence, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The applicants in these cases are:

(1) Arun s/o. Marotrao Patil, Retired Govt. Servant as District Resettlement Officer.

(2) Govind s/o. Krishnaji Kubde, Retired Add. Collector.

(3) Sakharam s/o. Shivram Wankhede, Incharge Supply Inspector, Mahagaon.

(4) Arun s/o. Krushnarao Dhobale, Supply Inspector, Mahagaon now at Darwha.

(5) Hiralal s/o. Gangaprasad Jaiswal Junior Clerk at Tahsil Office, Umarkhed.

(6) Godhaji Bhagwanrao Gore, Junior Clerk at Tahsil Office Umarkhed.

(7) Abhijit s/o. Keshavrao Gavankar, Clerk in Mahagaon Tahsil Office.

(8) Shri. Sahebrao s/o. Khanduji Kamble, then Inspecting Officer, Pusad.

(9) Bhagwat Narayan Saindane, Project Officer, Intergrated Tribal Development Project Pandharkawada.

(10) Keshav s/o. Shankar Darunde, Circle Officer.

(11) Kamruddin Habibbhai Gaziyani, Business.

The applicants except applicant in Criminal Application No.3072/07 i.e. Kamruddin Habibbhai Gaziyani, are working as or were working as officials in Food & Civil Supply Department, Tahsil Mahagaon, District Yavatmal. These officials are Additional Collector, District Supply Officers, Supply Inspecting Officers, clerks etc. Applicant Kamruddin is the semi whole-saler of kerosene having license issued by the Government of Maharashtra.

3. Brief facts through which the registration of offence had arisen may be stated thus-

A Criminal Writ Petition No.574/06 was filed before this Court alleging that there had been serious irregularities in supply of kerosene in Mahagaon tahsil, District Yavatmal. The said writ petition was filed by Ananta Uttamrao Nagargoje. It was alleged that the quota of kerosene which was meant for distribution to the card holders in the said taluka was released much more in quantity excess than what was required. It was clearly suggested that whatever quota of kerosene i.e. blue kerosene was to be released was meant for distribution to the card holders through the chain of whole-salers, semi whole-salers and then retailers. It was alleged that the too much of excess quantity of kerosene was allocated and it was even distributed and sold in the said taluka. It was suggested that the said kerosene was sold in black market in contravention of the relevant orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act. It was alleged that the Officers of Food Supply Department and the machinery who were engaged in supply of kerosene to the card holders ultimately through the wholesalers, semi-wholesalers and retailers were involved in the said scam. A prayer was made to initiate inquiry into those allegations, so also suitable action against the all concerned was requested.

4. It may be stated that Additional Collector therein had filed an affidavit to the effect that the distribution of kerosene and supply thereof was as per the requirement and no excess allocation was made. Thereafter, however, an inquiry was held by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, at the instance of Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra. Accordingly, the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, submitted his inquiry report regarding distribution and supply of kerosene for the period from January, 2003 to April, 2006. This court therein found that the cause of action involved in the petition was of serious nature. As such the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra was directed to file affidavit therein. Pursuant to that order, the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, filed an affidavit giving the names of the officers who were prima facie involved in the matter and had committed serious irregularities & illegalities in allocation and distribution of kerosene in Mahagaon taluka.

The officers involved were stated to be,

Sr. No.	Name of the Officers	Designation	Period
1	Shri. G. K. Kubde	Addl. Collector	2.8.2002 to 31.10.2005
2	Shri. B. N. Saindane	Distt.Supply Officer	4.9.2001 to 29.4.2006
3	Shri. S. S. Tandil	Tahsildar	24.1.2003 to 1.5.2005
4	Shri. A. K. Dhoble	Supply Inspector	1.1.2002 to 2.8.2004
5	Shri. S. S. Wankhade	Supply Inspector	3.8.2004 to till date
6	Shri. K. S. Darunde	Sr.Clerk	1/2003 to 3/2003 and 7/2003 to 10/2003
7	Shri. A. K. Ghavhankar		2/2005 to 10/2005 and 2/2006 to till date
8	Shri. A. B. Kalbande	Sr.Clerk	12/2004 to 1/2005
9	Shri. V. B. Dasarvar	Sr.Clerk	11/2005 to 1/2006
10	Shri. G. B. Gore	Jr.Clerk	4/2003 to 6/2003 and 11/2003 to 12/2003
11	Shri. S. G. Jaiswal	Jr.Clerk	1/2004 to 6/20004

The affidavit was also to the effect that the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) was directed to make an inquiry as to whether any criminal offence has been committed by anybody. The petitioner had mentioned that there was excess allotment of kerosene. The relevant table can be found in the order as below.

Months/Year	Excess Allotment	Amount Recoverable
Jan. to Dec., 2003	1023 KL	Rs. 3,06,90,000/-
Jan. to Dec., 2004	1137 KL	Rs. 3,41,10,000/-
Jan.2005 to April, 2006	1728 KL	Rs. 5,18,40,000/-
Total :	3888 KL	Rs. 11,66,40,000/-

5. During the course of hearing of that matter, it was submitted by the Public Prosecutor that Shri. Deorao Gedam, Purchase Officer of District Supply Office, Yavatmal, has lodged report under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w. Section 34 of the I.P.C., upon which the present Crime No.104/2007 was registered against those persons. The names of the present applicants also figured in the said list of accused amongst others. The said petition was thereafter disposed of and it was observed therein that,

"In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is apparent that after taking cognizance by this Court in respect of serious allegations made by the petitioner in the present petition as well as in view of directions given by this Court to the State Government as well as competent Authority, enquiry was conducted by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, in respect of allegations made by the petitioner regarding illegalities/irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Officers of the Department, retailers and Semi-Wholesale Dealers in allocation and distribution of kerosene in Mahagaon Tahsil. The Divisional Commissioner also initiated departmental proceedings against the Officers of the Department, whose names are mentioned hereinabove. Similarly, Purchase Officer of the District Supply Office, Yavatmal, Shri. Deorao Gedam on the basis of enquiry report of the Divisional Commissioner lodged a complaint against 48 persons for the offences mentioned hereinabove and Crime No.104/2007 is also registered against those persons. Since petitioner has brought before this Court the illegalities and irregularities alleged to have been committed in allocation and distribution of kerosene in Mahagaon Taluka by the officials of the Department, retailers and Semi-Wholesale Dealers, we could take cognizance of the issue pertaining to public cause and issue various directions from time to time to the competent Authority for conducting investigation and taking necessary action against the persons whose complicity was prima facie established. The competent authority, in view of our directions, located the officials of the Department, retailers and Semi-Wholesale Dealers, who have committed illegalities and irregularities in allocation and distribution of kerosene in Mahagaon Taluka. The competent authority has proceeded departmentally against the officials, who were involved in the controversy and action under the criminal law is also initiated against them and others. We must express that the petition has served the public cause.

In view of statement made by Shri. Sambre, Public Prosecutor, referred to hereinabove, it is open for the petitioner, intervener as well as any other interested person to place material/evidence before the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, in order to show complicity or involvement of retailers in Mahagaon Tahsil other than those against whom crime is registered. The learned Public Prosecutor has categorically stated that if such material is placed before the Divisional Commissioner, the Divisional Commissioner shall consider the same with all seriousness and proceed against those persons according to law, if there is a prima facie case made out and, therefore, no specific direction to the Divisional Commissioner in this regard is necessary. However, if such material is placed before the Divisional Commissioner, we expect the Divisional Commissioner to take a decision in this regard on its own merits according to law within a reasonable time.

So far as liberty sought by the learned Public Prosecutor for transferring the investigation to the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Amravati Division, Amravati, for proper and effective investigation by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, we want to express that in such contingency, it is open for the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, to obtain necessary orders in this regard from the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

We want to express that the competent Authority should also take effective steps according to law to recover the amount from the concerned persons, if it is established that the amount collected by them was in excess of the amount, which they were otherwise not eligible under the scheme to receive."

6. As the offences were registered against the above mentioned 48 persons including the present applicants, they approached to the Courts for anticipatory bail. Some were arrested, so they applied for bail and were released so the present applicants (officials) had applied for anticipatory bail, mainly claiming that they are not responsible for any offence and inasmuch as they had followed the legal procedure which was mandated by the circular of the Government of Maharashtra and if there is any irregularity, they are liable only for departmental action.

7. It is necessary at this stage to mention that the inquiry report submitted by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, showed that the out come of the inquiry was that the District Supply Office did not verify the demand of kerosene submitted by the Tahsil Office, Mahagaon. The District Supply Office did not allocate the quota of kerosene through the Tahsil office as per rules & norms. The allotment of kerosene quota was not in proportion with the number of cards (ration cards) and the population appearing from the said cards and therefore, there was excess release of quota of kerosene for Mahagao Tahsil, which was ultimately distributed to the wholesalers, semi-wholesalers and ultimately to the retailers, who have shown their distribution, though it was considerably excess than the card population. It is alleged that the said kerosene was not in many cases distributed to the card holders but was sold in black market. It was also found in the inquiry that semi-wholesalers had shown excess distribution of kerosene to the retailers (retail license holders). The retailers did not distribute the required kerosene to the card holders and they misappropriated the same by selling it in black market. It was also found that some of the semi-wholesalers showed excess distribution of kerosene and misappropriated the same. In conclusion, it was reported that, in Tahsil Office Mahagaon, there was irregularity, illegality in distribution of kerosene and in such commission of illegalities, there was complicity of all the four level authorities including the office of Additional Collector, who was entrusted with the duty to sanction quota of kerosene as per demand; Supply Officers who were to regulate and supervise the supply of kerosene; Tahsil Officers who were to make demands; clerks of the said office who were to make submissions regarding determination & demand of quota to be supplied each month; wholesalers and semi whole sellers who were entrusted with the duty to distribute the kerosene to the retailers i.e. retail license holders and the retailers who were to sell the said kerosene received to the actual card holders. Needless to mention that the retailers were not expected to sell the kerosene to the persons other than the card holders.

8. This report was based on verification of the registers and office record available in the office of Distribution & Supply Office, Tahsil Office, records maintained by the wholesalers, semi-wholesalers as well as the retailers. It was also recorded in the report that statements of the card holders, villagers and the license holders were recorded and on that basis these conclusions were drawn. As stated above, the said writ petition was disposed of in the above terms, with a hope that further inquiry would be conducted and suitable actions would be taken.

9. On receiving the report by the Police Station Officer, Mahagaon, asking for criminal action against the offenders, offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. r/w Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, was registered on 30.8.2007.

10. In the said report, the names of 13 officers were mentioned i.e.

Sr. No. & Name	Designation	Case No.
1.	Shri. G. K. Kubde	Applicant in Cri. Application No.2977/07
2.	then District Supply Officer, Yavatmal	Applicant in Cri. Application No.3041/07
3.	then Tahsildar, Mahagaon	-----
4.	then Sr. Clerk, Mahagaon	Applicant in Cri. Application No.3070/07
5.	then Jr. Clerk, Mahagaon	Applicant in Cri. Application No.3006/07
6.	then Jr. Clerk, Mahagaon	Applicant in Cri. Application No.3005/07
7.	Sr. Clerk, Mahagaon	Applicant in Cri. Application No.3021/07
8.	then Sr.Clerk, Mahagaon	-----
9.	then Sr.Clerk, Mahagaon	-----
10.	then Supply Inspector Mahagaon	Applicant in Cri. Application No.2996/07
11.	Supply Inspector, Mahagaon	Applicant in Cri. Application No.2990/07
12.	Inspecting Officer, Pusad	Applicant in Cri. Application No.2971/07
13.	then Inspecting Officer, Pusad	Applicant in Cri. Application No.3025/07

The present applicants were also named accused therein. It may be mentioned that the last applicant is Kamruddin (applicant in Criminal Application No. 3073/07). He is semi-wholesaler. It is alleged that these applicants and the others who have been mentioned in the report as an accused had committed the offence in conspiracy with each other by allocating the kerosene in excess quota than what was entitled by the Mahagaon Tahsil as per the strength of card holders and the population of persons mentioned therein. As the excess quota was released and distributed, the same was misappropriated by black-marketing. The chart is also given along with the report as to how demand was made by Tahsildar, how much was the actual allocation of the kerosene per month, how much should be the allocation as per norms and how much was the kerosene that was misappropriated. Needless to state that the figures of misappropriation of blue kerosene that is meant for distribution on cards is obviously shocking.

11. At this stage, the general submissions of the applicants (officials of the department) need to be noted. According to them, they have performed their duties properly and as required by the rules & regulations and the orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act. According to them, the procedure of allocation of the quota of kerosene was carried out in the office of Tahsildar, Mahagaon. The Tahsildar used to prepare a note with the help of the officials in his office regarding the demand of kerosene and its quota. According to them, the quota of kerosene that was to be demanded used to be in proportion with the quota which was sought earlier. According to them further that they have performed their duties properly and diligently and there was no element of criminal intention or misconduct or any attempt to misappropriate the kerosene. They have also submitted that the demand of kerosene was made as per the strength of the card holders and in routine way. It is further their common submission that the quota that was sanctioned for each month by the District Supply Office i.e. Additional Collector, Yavatmal, was less than what was demanded and therefore, there was no question of any asking for excess quota, particularly with a criminal intention to sell the same in black market. It is also their submission that even if some excess quota is released to the wholesalers or semi-wholesalers or even to the retailers, they were required to sell the same to the card holders as per the norms and therefore, even if any excess quota was released to them, unless they misappropriated, there would not have been any question of misappropriation of the kerosene as they were selling the sane to the card holders and reserving the balance quota. Therefore, according to them, they should be granted anticipatory bail as there was no mens-rea or criminal intention to misappropriate the kerosene on their part.

12. It is also their common contention that in fact there were no complaints as regards non receipt of kerosene by the card holders or even regarding sale of kerosene in the black market. According to them, there cannot be any presumption of selling the kerosene in black market, in absence of such complaint. Some of them have contended that they were in the office, particularly clerks for a short time and therefore, no criminal intention can be attributed to them, inasmuch as they had followed the earlier procedure of preparing notes and making demands and the same was almost routine. It is also contended that the factual aspects recorded in the complaint and even in the inquiry report submitted by the Divisional Commissioner are not correct. There was no allocation of kerosene more than the demand and there was no verification of cards & card population and as such it cannot be said that they have committed any offence. Further, they have submitted that inquiry in the present case is over and all the documents are in possession of the department as well as the investigating authority and as such there is no necessity of any custodial investigation and therefore, they should be granted anticipatory bail.

13. The submissions on behalf of semi-wholesaler i.e. applicant in Criminal Application No.3073/07 are that, semi-wholesalers used to receive the quota of kerosene as determined by the Government from time to time which was to depend only on the number of cards attached to the semi wholesalers. The semi-wholesalers used to allocate the kerosene to the retailers. The list of retailers and the hawkers used to be maintained by the office and they were used to be attached to the semi-wholesalers. 3 to 4 registers were required to be maintained for receipt of kerosene by them, their distribution of the same to the retailers and in fact they were maintained. There are 30 retailers who are accused as per the report, but all the retailers have been enlarged on anticipatory bail. In fact, the retailers should have been enquired as to how much kerosene they had received, how much they had sold to the card holders and how much in excess received by them and why it could not be returned to the semi-wholesalers or the office of Tahsildar. According to the learned counsel for the semi-wholesaler/applicant, the allegations against the present semi-wholesaler are based on false statements of retailers. It is contended further that there was collusion between the retailers and the Government officials. The inspection of the establishment of semi-wholesalers including the applicant was carried out from time to time and there was no irregularities noticed. The affidavits filed to implicate this semi-wholesaler i.e. of Mohammad Hasul and Sheikh are not correct. According to the learned counsel for the applicant , the prosecution of the semi-wholesaler is vindictive and custodial investigation is not at all necessary. It is further contended that till the report of the Divisional Commissioner and the registration of offence in this case, there was no complaint against him and therefore, he should be released on anticipatory bail. More so because his license has been suspended and other semi-wholesalers have been released on bail.

14. Learned Public Prosecutor while opposing these bail applications contended that the custodial investigation of the present applicants is necessary. It is further submitted by him taking me through the duties list of these officials that they have not performed their duties properly, diligently and they were responsible for release of excess quota of the kerosene than what was required. The said kerosene was not at all distributed to the card holders by the retailers and the semi-wholesalers. He referred to the orders of the Government and some circulars to contend that how the functioning of this distribution system was to be done and submitted that the applicants have failed to perform their duties with criminal intention so as to facilitate the release of excess kerosene quota to the wholesalers, semi-wholesalers to further allowing them to sell the same in black-market. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the offences have been registered against them and as their custodial investigation is necessary, the anticipatory bail should not be granted to them.

15. I may mention that parties have relied on several authorities in support of their contentions. Few of them need to be referred at this stage considering the nature of the final order that is being passed in the present applications.

16. The applicants have relied on

(a) (1980)2 SCC 565, Shri. Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab, wherein the parameters of allowing the anticipatory bail have been laid down. The applicants have referred to para 31, which reads thus;

"31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh, which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail."

(b) 1981 Mh.L.J. 791, Jagannath Ramchandra Biyani Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein it has been held in Paras, 7, 9 & 10, which read thus-

"7. Two preliminary objections have been taken on behalf of the complainant with regard to the maintainability of this petition and the grant of anticipatory bail. Firstly, it is contended that, according to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the police custody of the accused is necessary in order to make the recovery of the property and it is submitted that the provisions of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to the police custody of the accused for the purpose of investigation must prevail over the provisions of anticipatory bail contained in Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Reliance for this proposition was placed on a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurbaksh Singh Vs. State of Punjab. This point need not detain us in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the same case of Gurubaksh Singh Vs. State of Punjab. The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the provisions of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code must prevail over the provisions of anticipatory bail contained in Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, this reasoning of the Full Bench did not find favour with Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, who in terms have rejected such a contention in paragraph 19 of the judgment. Mr. Parikh on behalf of the complainant had also cited a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Mahanthagouda Vs. State of Karnataka, following the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, but I do not think it necessary to refer to it in view of the Supreme Court decision quoted above. It is thus clear that anticipatory bail should not be refused merely because prosecution claim that they want the accused in police custody for the purpose of investigation. The genuineness of the alleged need for police custody has to be examined and it must be balanced against the duty of Courts to uphold the dignity of every man and to vigilantly guard his right to liberty without jeopardizing the State objective of maintenance of law and order. The second preliminary objection raised on behalf of the complainant was based on the wording of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 438(1) provides:-

"438. (1) when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session......"

It was submitted that the words "High Court or the Court of Session" mean that an application for anticipatory bail can lie in either court and not both the courts. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Amiya Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal. The view taken in that case is that the word "or" used in the opening part of section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is used in an "alternative sense", meaning thereby that the applicant has a choice of one out of the two forums. According to the learned Judges of the Division Bench, similar word "or" used in sections 439 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code is used in "non-alternative sense"and it is equivalent to "and" because these two sections speak of power to be exercised and do not refer to the forum where an application is to be filed. With greatest respect, I am unable to persuade myself to agree to the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Amiya Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal. Under the old Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, powers of revision under Section 435 and power to grant bail under section 498 of the old Code were concurrent and exercisable by both courts, though, as a matter of practice and propriety, it was insisted that the lower of the two courts should be approached first. While enacting similar provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Parliament thought that the revisional jurisdiction should not be concurrent and, therefore, a provision was made in section 397 (3) of the new Code that if one Court was moved in its revisional jurisdiction, the other Court shall not entertain similar application. Nothing prevented Parliament from putting a similar bar in the provisions relating to bail - either pre-arrest or post-arrest - and this indicates that what was intended was exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by Court of Sessions and High Court in the matter of grant of bail. Though it is reported at the Bar that there is no decision of this Court on the point, I find that a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Onkar Nath Vs. State, has held that the jurisdictions under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code vested in the Sessions Court and the High Court are concurrent. To similar effect is the decision of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Chhajju Ram Vs. State of Haryana. It has been observed in that case that the petitioner should ordinarily first move the Court of Session for grant of an anticipatory bail and after exhausting that remedy, he should approach the High Court for grant of an anticipatory bail.

........

9. Broadly stated, the two basic principles which must be kept in view while considering the question of grant of anticipatory bail are (i) that there should be no likelihood of the accused absconding and (ii) that there should be no likelihood of the accused misusing his liberty. For ascertaining the first part, the test, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar, is to see as to whether the accused has his roots in the community. In that case, the Supreme Court has indicated about eight factors for finding out as to whether an accused person has got roots in the community.

They are as under :-

"1. the length of his residence in the community.

2. his employment status, history and his financial condition,

3. his family ties and relationship,

4. his reputation, character and monetary condition,

5. his prior criminal record including any record or prior release on recognizance or on bail,

6. the identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch for his reliability,

7. the nature of the offence charged and the apparent probability of conviction and the likely sentence in so far as these factors are relevant to the risk of non-appearance, and

8. any other factors indicating the ties of the accused to the community or bearing on the risk of willful failure to appear."

Applying these tests, it is apparent that there is absolutely no likelihood of the accused absconding in the present case. The next question is as to whether the accused, if released on bail, is likely to misuse his liberty. The paramount consideration in that behalf are, to quote Krishna Iyer J., in the Supreme Court decision in Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs. Public Prosecutor, A.P :-

"Whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the court to be freed for the time being."

The previous history of the petitioner can be taken into account for ascertaining whether he is likely to repeat similar offences. Likelihood of tampering of prosecution evidence has also to be considered. Status of accused, the vulnerability of prosecution witnesses are that two factors which go into decision of the question.

10. Apart from the above two basic principles, which have to be kept in view while granting any bail either post-arrest or pre-arrest;, Courts have also to take into account (i) the nature and seriousness of the accusations, (ii) the nature of the prosecution evidence, (iii) the severity of the likely punishment in case the prosecution succeeds and (iv) the status of the accused. While examining the nature of prosecution evidence for this purpose, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation should be avoided. Broad circumspection is enough."

(c) 1989 Cri.L.J. 252, Devidas Raghu Naik Vs. The State, wherein it has been held that when investigation can be done without arrest of the applicant and he offers to appear before the police as and when necessary, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

(d) AIR 1994 SC 1349, Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein it has been held that the right of arrested persons were considered.

(e) 1997 Bom C.R. (Cri.) 712 : [1997 ALL MR (Cri) 962], Rafique Abdul Malik and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra; wherein it has been held that the court has to weigh in golden scale the pros and cons of granting the anticipatory bail or granting the custodial interrogation to the police.

(f) The applicants have further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in (2005)7 SCC 226, Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another; to point out that when other accused have been released on anticipatory bail and they have similar allegations, then these applicants may also be released on bail.

(g) The decision in (2004)1 Mh.L.J. 1079 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2379 (S.C.)], Bharat Chaudhary and another Vs. State of Bihar and another, has also been referred to point out as to what factor should be considered while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail.

17. The learned Public Prosecutor has also relied on several authorities. Those are-

(a) AIR 2001 SC 3810 : [2002 ALL MR (Cri) 430 (S.C.)], Narinderjit Singh Sahni and another Vs. Union of India and others.

(b) AIR 1995 SC 1198, State of M.P. and another Vs. Ram Kishna Balothia and another;

(c ) (1980)2 SCC 565, Shri. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab;

(d) (1998)1 SCC 52, Dukhishyam Benupani Vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria;

(e) (1999)5 SCC 720 : [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 347 (S.C.)], Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay Vs. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora and another;

(f) (2005)4 SCC 303 : [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1097 (S.C.)], Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of W.B..

(g) (1987) 2 SCC 365, State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal J. Porwal.

(h) (1996)2 SCC 37, State of H.P. Vs. Pirthi Chand and another.

(i) 1992 Cri.L.J. 4032, Harshad S. Mehta Vs. Union of India and another.

(j) 1998 Cri.L.J. 2556 : [1998 ALL MR (Cri) 824 (S.C.)], Harjinder Singh Vs. Karnail Singh and others.

(k) (1998)2 SCC 105 : [1998 ALL MR (Cri) 654 (S.C.)], Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain.

(l) (1997)7 SCC 187, State rep. by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma;

(m) (1997)6 SCC 647, Directorate of Enforcement and another Vs. P. V. Prabhakar Rao;

(n) (2001)4 SCC 638, Muraleedharan Vs. State of Kerla;

(o) 2004 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 19, Natvarbhai Pitamberbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat;

(p) 1999 ALL MR (Cri) 458, Mr. Abhay R. Sinha Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

(q) 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3224, State of Maharashtra Vs. Satyakumar Kamalkishore Nashine and Anr.

18. All these authorities have been referred by learned Public Prosecutor mainly to contend that in the serious offences, particularly the economic offences, normally the court should be slow in granting anticipatory bail to the accused. The investigation in such cases is likely to be scuttled if the bail is granted. According to him, in economic offences, as in the instant case, the Court should be strict in granting the anticipatory bail.

19. It is necessary to bear in mind that the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. confer the discretionary powers on the Court to grant pre-arrest bail. However, that discretion has to be exercised judiciously. In the case of serious offences when further investigation needs to be done, the Court should be reluctant to grant anticipatory bail. I need not refer all the above citations, inasmuch as the present applications can be decided only on facts.

20. As already observed above, it would be seen that the offence was registered upon the complaint which followed because of the decision of this Court. The crux of the matter is that, in the present case, there was no inquiry or any complaint received prior to that writ petition regarding non receipt of the kerosene by the card holders or sale of the kerosene i.e. blue kerosene in open market, which was meant for distribution to the card holders. The sale of kerosene in the black market was never informed to any of the authorities prior to the writ petition. The inquiry was made in pursuance to the orders of the court in the said writ petition and then the Chief Secretary had filed an affidavit based on the report of the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. Only in that inquiry, the alleged misappropriation of the kerosene quota, illegal distribution of the same and selling of the same in the black market was allegedly noticed. It obviously means that none of the authorities or officials concerned had ever performed their duties as prescribed by the Government circulars by surprise checks, periodical inspections and maintenance of the registers. Even retailers were found not maintaining the record of receipt of kerosene by them and its sale or distribution to the card holders. Whatever inquiry was done, the same was done in pursuance to the orders in the aforesaid writ petition.

21. The said writ petition was related to the incident in Mahagaon Taluka. In the report of Divisional Commissioner, it was pointed out that in the District Supply Office, the illegalities were allegedly done. I had specifically asked the learned Public Prosecutor as to whether any inquiry was done in respect of such irregularities in other Talukas or for that matter in the other districts of the State of Maharashtra, but the answer was in negative.

22. I am referred to the conclusions drawn by the Divisional Commissioner in his report.

"Inspection of the records available with District Supply Office, Tahsil Office, wholesale/semi wholesale/retail license holders was done . When the record was not available, in that event, the record was reconstructed on the basis of other records. As per necessity, by personal visit, the statements of card holders/villagers/license holders were recorded. The information collected in the above action was analyzed and accordingly, following conclusions are being drawn.

1. There is no confirmation made as to whether the demand for kerosene made by the Tahsil Office from District Supply Office is in accordance with the rules. Similarly, though it is expected that the quota sanctioned to the Tahsil Office by the District Supply office is expected to be distributed in equal ratio, the District Supply Office did not exercise such care. Without complying with any norms, the District Supply Officer granted quota to the Tahsil and by making available more kerosene than necessity to the Talukas, it can be seen that they are given opportunity to misappropriate the same.

2. The Tahsil Office has not fixed the demand of kerosene in accordance with Government norms and number of card holders and units therein in the concerned taluka. Due to excessive demand by the Tahsil Office from District Supply Office, the Taluka received more quota of kerosene than the necessity. This excess kerosene has been disposed of illegally as could be seen prima facie.

3. The semi-wholesaler license holders have shown entries in their record for more kerosene supplied to the retailers than what was supplied. Similarly, the retailers have not distributed the kerosene received to the card holders as per the norms and sold the less quantity of kerosene than the norms. Both these license holders at their respective levels, as mentioned above, have misappropriated the kerosene to the extent of difference and have illegally disposed of the same.

Considering the above facts, it is clear that in Tahsil Office Mahagaon, there are irregularities in respect of distribution of kerosene and the kerosene is disposed of illegally. Participation at all above four levels in commission of irregularities in the distribution system and contribution thereof for years together shows criminal tendency. However, it is necessary to make a detailed inquiry so as to pin point criminal elements, persons involved therein, the tactics adopted for misappropriation and the procedure therefor. Since the said inquiry would be proper to be conducted through the competent machinery, it is proposed for the same."

23. With these observations about the working of District Supply Office and other offices in Yavatmal District, it is difficult to say that such types of affairs may not be in other talukas. No doubt, the original writ petition was restricted to the illegalities or irregularities committed in the distribution of kerosene in Mahagaon Taluka, but the fact remains that when such illegalities or irregularities were noticed in the District Supply Office, in my opinion, it was duty of the concerned authorities not to be satisfied with inquiry in Mahagaon taluka only, but to get it confirmed that no such illegalities and irregularities are committed in other talukas of Yavatmal district and for that matter other districts of Maharashtra.

24. Leave this apart, it needs to be mentioned that during the course of these proceedings, it was asked as to whether any investigation was done during the pendency of these applications i.e. since about October, 2007, because of lengthy hearing of these applications. But the reply was, "there was no progress in the investigation". The delay in the investigation is attributed to the transfer of investigating officer or perhaps to the other agency. Considering the fact that several contentions were raised by the parties and the matter was to take long time for disposal, it was expected that the investigation by this time of the offence would have been substantially completed as the applicants were ready to co-operate with the investigation during all this period. The reason for delay in investigation that the investigating officer was transferred cannot be said to be satisfactory by any means. Even for further investigation, the suitable orders of this Court could have been obtained. As such, now the fact remains that the only material on record which is available for consideration of these applications, is the F.I.R., which is registered and the report submitted by the Divisional Commissioner & the documents referred. There appears to be no crucial statements or material statements recorded by the investigating officer. At least, none of them is pressed into service by the respondent, except two statements referred above.

25. The applicants have raised considerable important points for appreciation of the Court. The non-complaint regarding the black-marketing of kerosene prior to the writ petition, is a fact which speaks in favour of the applicants. Non noticing of the irregularities during the inspection also supports the applicants. Some of the applicants have also filed documents on record to show that in fact they had carried out inspections properly and no irregularities were noticed.

26. The applicants have pressed into service the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, regarding release of one of the accused on anticipatory bail. The observations there are thus.

"7. On giving thoughtful consideration and perusing the case diary and F.I.R. it appears that the applicant no. 1 Anant Kalbande arrayed as accused no. 8 in the F.I.R. in the column of officers and employees, was working as a Sr. Clerk, in the Supply Office for a very short period of 21 days in additional charge from 10.4.2004 to 31.4.2004 in the leave period of then Sr. Clerk Gavankar who has not handed over the keys of record and office, whereas applicant no.2 Vivekanand Dasarwar arrayed as accused no. 9 in column of Officers and employees in the FIR was working for a very short period since 19.11.2005 to 6.12.2005 of 19 days during the leave period of Gavankar, then Sr. Clerk in the supply Office, Mahagaon. During this period key was not handed over to him and he was forced to work. It also appears that the applicants have not prepared any note sheet during the relevant period and not done any active part in policy decision in the supply of kerosene as outpours from their statement recorded by the I.O. after releasing them on interim bail. It is also pertinent to note that the prosecution and IO in their say at Exh.14 and 15 itself contended that these applicants have not prepared any demand note and confessed about commission of offence and modus oprendi used by the other officers concerned. As such considering the very short period of the applicants working in the supply office, Mahagaon, and not taking any part in policy decision during the relevant period and not handed over the keys by then Sr. Clerk Gavankar, the case of the applicants is at different footing than the case and activities committed by other officers and employees. There are several complaint against the other officers and not the applicants. As such apprehension of the applicants of intending arrest is based on reasonable belief and therefore, their case is required to be considered independently than the case of other officers and employees. As the prosecution has no serious objection to consider their application, hence the following order."

The observations were that, the prosecution has no serious objection to consider their bail applications. The prosecution has not challenged that order. The case of those applicants appears to be similar to some of present applicants (Officials).

27. As already pointed out above, in the present applications, except applicant in Criminal application No.3073/07, (applicants) are the Government officials. The period for which they were in process of the allotment of kerosene in this case, has been mentioned in the report itself.

28. On perusal of the said report, it appears that the allegations against the Additional Collector Shri. G. K. Kukde is that he did not verify as to demand was in proportion to the number of card holders and the number of persons mentioned therein. The allegations against the applicant S. N. Saindane is that he also did not verify as to whether the demand received from Tahsil Office is correct in pursuance to the number of card holders and the number of persons therein. The allegations against Tahsildar, Mahagaon (not before this Court) is that the demand made by him was without considering the number of card holders and the number of persons therein. The allegations against Shri. K. S. Darunde, Senior Clerk, is that he had knowledge that excess kerosene is being distributed, still he took part in the process. The allegations against Shri. G. B. Kate, is that he took part in the process of allocation of kerosene though he was knowing that excess kerosene is being distributed. The similar is the allegations against Shri. S. G. Jaiswal, Junior Clerk. The allegations against Shri. A. K. Gavhankar, Senior Clerk, is that he prepared false proposal for demand of kerosene without verifying the population as per the card strength, but showing the excess population. The allegations against Shri. A. K. Dhoble, is that he did not verify regarding the demand of quota of kerosene and sanctioned excess kerosene, rather recommended excess kerosene. The allegations against Shri. S.S. Wankhede, is of the similar nature, so also against Shri. A. B. Patil and Shri. S. K. Kamble. It goes, therefore, without saying that the allegations against these officials are regarding non performance of their duties properly and with due diligence. The allegations only against Shri. Gavhankar, seems to be that he had prepared false proposal i.e. false submission.

29. Needless to state that even in the inquiry conducted by the Divisional Commissioner, there was no criminal intention attributed to the present applicants except saying that they had taken part in the process with full knowledge. No where there was allegation that these applicants were benefited by the sale of kerosene, rather illegal sale of kerosene in the black market. The possibility of their being acting perfunctorily without any criminal intention cannot be overruled. A judicial notice of the fact that many a times routine proposals are submitted without actual verification of the requirements, can be taken. Therefore, in such circumstances, there should have been a clear connective material to show that all the applicants (officials) or any of them had any mens rea in submitting a false proposal for excess quota of kerosene to get the same distributed through their acquainted retailers and get benefited out of that. Here it is not a case that all these officials were somewhere or the other connected with the retailers i.e. who were the persons in the last rung having direct duty of distribution of kerosene to the card holders & card holders only. Though general allegations are made, there appears to be no specific statement of the persons either saying that they have not received the kerosene though they had cards or they had in fact received the kerosene in black market. There is also no specific evidence to show that the kerosene was being distributed without any entitlement through the cards.

30. Why this is important to note, is the fact that the kerosene in the present case which was allegedly distributed in excess quantity is in such a large quantity, that unless there is evidence on record, it is difficult to comprehend that all this kerosene would have been sold in black market without there being any complaints. Possibility of such use by some persons in large quantity is also not shown. In my opinion, therefore, when considerable time was lapsed, after registration of offence, during the pendency of these applications, it would have been befitting to the investigation agency to collect such evidence and produce it before the Court to show that such a large quantity of kerosene could have been sold in the black market with the aid of the retailers and for that matter, even by semi-wholesalers.

31. As such it appears that the prosecution has failed to produce any sufficient material on record to show that except dereliction of their duties , there can be any criminal intention in them to commit the offence to ultimately have some gain out of the sale of said kerosene in the black market.

32. As already pointed out above, the contents of F.I.R. as appearing from the allegations against the applicants (officials), it appears that they have not performed their duties diligently. They have offered themselves for the investigation. They are co-operating, as per their say. However, the fact seems otherwise that the investigating agency itself does not seem to be diligent & prompt in making the investigation. It is difficult to say that the investigating agency is trying to carry out the investigation with required zeal to book the real offenders. This aspect would definitely favours the applicants (officials).

33. It is necessary to bear in mind that the prosecution has not challenged the orders of several other accused who were released on either bail or anticipatory bail. As already observed above, the thrust of the contention of the respondent is that, applicants (officials) had not performed their duties properly. It has been pointed out that these applicants have been departmentally proceeded and in fact they are being proceeded. I have also pointed out that there appears no criminal intention, atleast, at this stage, in commission of these offences i.e. facilitating much quota of kerosene for being distributed or sale in black market. In this view of the matter, therefore, it is difficult to say that custodial investigation is necessary. More so, because, the records of the District Supply Office, Tahsil Office has already been with the investigating agency.

34. It is needless to add that even if this appears to be an economic offence to some extent, that fact by itself will not call for outright rejection of the applications. There has to be material on record, that apart from their negligence in performing their duties, they had done something depicting their criminal intention.

35. In my opinion, in view of the above observations, it is not necessary to go into the details of the contentions raised by the individual applicants.

36. Turning to then case of the applicant in Criminal Application No.3073/2007, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the semi-wholesalers used to receive quota through wholesalers. He could get the quota of kerosene as determined by the Government. The said allotment used to depend only on the number of cards attached to individual semi-wholesaler. The semi-wholesalers used to allot kerosene for sale to the retailers. The list of retailers and hawkers used to be with the District Supply Officer or Tahsil Office and it as used to be supplied to the semi-wholesalers. 3 to 4 registers used to be maintained by the applicant and the quantity of distribution of kerosene to the retailers used to be recorded therein and the signature of the concerned retailer used to be obtained. 20 retailers are made accused and all the retailers have been enlarged on anticipatory bail. The allegations against the present applicant is that he has released the quota of kerosene to the retailers not as per norms. It was duty of the retailers to sell the kerosene only to the card holders. He has alleged that there is collusion between the retailers and the Government officers. It appears to be fact that the retailers have not maintained the record. It is also submitted by him that there was inspection carried out of the applicant's establishment. It is also submitted that because the license of sale of kerosene of Kharedi-Vikri Sangh was cancelled, this applicant was granted additional quota of kerosene. He has also referred to two affidavits filed by one Mohammad Hussain and Sheikh. According to him, they are co-accused and therefore, their affidavits cannot be believed. He has also submitted that the complaint against the present applicant of Sindhu Bhagat is vindictive. It is also submitted that the custodial investigation of the applicant is not at all necessary. He is entitled for anticipatory bail because his license for sale of kerosene is suspended.

37. In my view, the offences in the present case could not have been committed except with the active support of the retailers, semi-wholesalers and wholesalers. Even if, excess quota of kerosene wrongly or rightly is released to any wholesaler, even for the sake of argument it is assumed that the same was released because of false or wrong submissions, as the said kerosene was to be distributed only to the card holders and that too by maintaining record, the maximum part in the offence would have been committed by the retailers. It is apparent that, except this semi-wholesaler, all other concerned persons have been either released on bail or on anticipatory bail. I have already pointed out above that there is no move by the respondent to get those bails cancelled. In such circumstances, this applicant would call treatment in similar way.

38. Learned counsel for the applicant states that this applicant has released the quota of kerosene to the retailers as per the list and as per the quantity as determined by the Supply Office and Tahsildar's office. He states that same has been distributed to the retailers and their signatures have been obtained on the registers maintained for the same. This statement ultimately would mean that he has distributed the kerosene to the retailers as per requirement and number of card holders attached to each retailers. Unless the necessary investigation is done and it is pointed out that he has distributed the excess kerosene to the retailers than what was the card strength, it would be difficult to say that he is responsible for commission of the alleged offence. No doubt, the investigation in this behalf seems necessary, but that can be done on the basis of the documents like registers maintained by him and retailers. Two affidavits (referred above) filed on record to oppose anticipatory bail of the applicants are of co-accused and because they are filed at quite late stage, they do not inspire confidence. It further needs to be noted that, as pointed out above, no further investigation was carried out by the investigating agency after these applications were filed. Even, the applicants were not asked to appear, nor were asked to produce any documents, registers etc., for the purposes of investigation . Therefore, in my opinion, for the total inaction on the part of the respondent - investigating agency, the applicants would be entitled for relief. The claim of rejection of applications seems to be an empty formality.

39. It is needless to mention that although the applicants would be entitled for anticipatory bail, the prosecution would be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail, if the circumstances so require. The bail would be subject to conditions, with a direction that they shall co-operate with the investigation.

40. It is made clear that the above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and as such they shall not influence the learned trial Judge while deciding the matter on merits.

41. As such, in the result, the applications are allowed with the following orders.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2971/2007:

In the event of the arrest of the applicant Arun s/o. Marotrao Patil for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime No.104/07 of Police Station, Mahagaon, Distt. Yavatmal, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Mahagaon as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahagaon without prior permission of the I.O.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2977/2007:

In the event of the arrest of the applicant Govind s/o.Krishnaji Kubde, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime No. 104/07 of Police Station, Mahagaon, Distt. Yavatmal, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Mahagaon as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahagaon without prior permission of the I.O.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2990/2007

In the event of the arrest of the applicant Sakharam s/o. Shivram Wankhede for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime No.104/07 of Police Station, Mahagaon, Distt. Yavatmal, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Mahagaon as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahagaon without prior permission of the I.O.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2996/2007

In the event of the arrest of the applicant Arun s/o. Krushnarao Dhobale for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime No.104/07 of Police Station, Mahagaon, Distt. Yavatmal, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Mahagaon as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahagaon without prior permission of the I.O.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3005/2007

In the event of the arrest of the applicant Hiralal s/o. Gangaprasad Jaiswal for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime No.104/07 of Police Station, Mahagaon, Distt. Yavatmal, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Mahagaon as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahagaon without prior permission of the I.O.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3006/2007

In the event of the arrest of the applicant Godhaji Bhagwanrao Gore for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime No.104/07 of Police Station, Mahagaon, Distt. Yavatmal, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Mahagaon as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahagaon without prior permission of the I.O..

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3021/2007:

In the event of the arrest of the applicant Abhijit s/o. Keshavrao Gavankar, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime No.104/07 of Police Station, Mahagaon, Distt.Yavatmal, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Mahagaon as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahagaon without prior permission of the I.O.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3025/2007:

In the event of the arrest of the applicant Shri. Sahebrao s/o. Khanduji Kamble, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime No.104/07 of Police Station, Mahagaon, Distt.Yavatmal, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Mahagaon as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahagaon without prior permission of the I.O.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3041/2007:

In the event of the arrest of the applicant Bhagwat Narayan Saindane, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime No.104/07 of Police Station, Mahagaon, Distt.Yavatmal, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P. R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Mahagaon as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahagaon without prior permission of the I.O..

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3070/2007:

In the event of the arrest of the applicant Keshav s/o. Shankar Darunde, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime No.104/07 of Police Station, Mahagaon, Distt.Yavatmal, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Mahagaon as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahagaon without prior permission of the I.O..

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3073/2007:

In the event of the arrest of the applicant Kamruddin Habibbhai Gaziyani, for the offences punishable sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act in Crime No.104/07 of Police Station, Mahagaon, Distt.Yavatmal, he be released on bail on furnishing surety and P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall report at Police Station Mahagaon as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahagaon without prior permission of the I.O.

It is made clear that the applicant shall produce all the documents, registers, bills, account-books etc., before I.O. in respect of relevant period on requisition by the I.O. His failure to do so may invite cancellation of anticipatory bail.

Applications stand disposed of.

Application allowed.