Mahant Chilojibuva Guru Hamrojibuva v. The State of Maharashtra & another
Case Details
- 1 - aba378.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 378 OF 2024 Mahant Chilojibuva Guru Hamrojibuva .. Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & another .. Respondents Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. Abjijeet Avhad along with Mrs. Meenal Deshmukh, Ms. Vikhyati Jain, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for the State. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. RESERVED ON : 23rd OCTOBER, 2024. PRONOUNCED ON : 25th OCTOBER, 2024. ORDER : 1. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 0519/2023 registered with Tuljapur Police Station, District Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 381 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Though theft is not alleged during the course of hearing, learned APP sought to make submissions in that regard. 2. First informant is the Tahsildar and Manager (Administration) of Shri Tuljabhavani Mandir Sansthan, Tuljapur, - 2 - aba378.24.odt District Dharashiv. It is stated in the First Information Reort that the Collector, Dharashiv appointed a committee for verification of gold and silver ornaments of the Sansthan. It is stated that certain documents and registers are maintained in respect of the ornaments of goddess. It is claimed that in 1963, a register was maintained wherein entries are taken in respect of gold ornaments/articles with number, weight, description etc. Entries in respect of silver ornaments and other articles is taken in the register titled as ‘nts Zokjh vyadkjkf’kok; pkanhP;k oLrq o okgu oxSjsps jthLVj’. It is, however, not reflected from the said register as to the date or year from which the entries are taken. It is claimed that silver articles therein mentioned above are used to be in the custody of (i) Mahant Hamrojibuva Guru, Chilojibuva Math, (ii) Mahant Wakojibuva Guru Tukojibuva, Mahant Bajajibuva Guru Wakojibuva Mahant Tukojibuva Guru Bajajibuva
Legal Reasoning
In order to prima facie appreciate as to whether a case has been made out against the present Applicant of commission of - 9 - aba378.24.odt offence as alleged against him, the material placed on record is considered for that purpose and to a limited extent. There is no dispute about the fact that in respect of the alleged mis-approriation of ornaments, gold and silver etc., Crime No. 323/2020 came to be registered and after conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed against sole accused Naikwadi. Further as per the submissions made across the bar by learned APP, seven boxes containing ornaments and articles used for adorning the goddess were kept in a safe room. The door of the said room can be opened with two keys. It is thus clear that at all time, whenever any article from any box is to be removed from the said room, unless two keys; one with the Applicant as Chief Priest and another with the administration, are used, the main door cannot be opened. It is further submitted on behalf of the prosecution that there are two compartments on entry into the said room, and Box No. 6 contains ornaments and articles used daily for adorning goddess or for performing her pooja is kept in exclusive custody of Applicant. Box Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 contain other ornaments and articles which are used occasionally i.e. during festival time are kept separately. Thus, even as per the case of prosecution, the only box i.e. Box No. 6 was in exclusive possession/custody of Applicant and the articles therefrom are used - 10 - aba378.24.odt daily. Insofar as the other boxes it cannot be said that Applicant has its exclusive custody. 8. Affidavit of Mahant Hamrojibuva executed on 27.11.1995 clearly indicates that from that date present Applicant became Mahant (Chief Priest) and since then, he is performing the duties as Mahant and was also having custody of the articles of safe room. 9. Allegations are made against the Applicant for committing offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of Indian Penal Code. Though it is not alleged in the First Information Report that this is a case of commission of theft, during the course of arguments, learned APP submitted that this is a case of theft. When he was confronted with the material on record in respect of the alleged theft of golden crown pointing out that in fact there are two gold crowns available, one with Adminstration and another with the Applicant, and that there is a report of jeweller confirming the crown with Applicant to be the same as it appears in the old photo album, it is sought to be argued that this is a case of attempted theft. Apart from this, perusal of record indicates that after such information was given by the jeweller pursuant to the order passed by the Collector in - 11 - aba378.24.odt this regard, now it is said that the jeweller did not verify the crown scientifically and that age of the metal is not determined. It is now, a request is made to the expert to ascertain the same. It is thus clear that even without ascertaining the genuineness or otherwise of the crown, allegation is sought to be made that there is a theft committed or sought to be committed of the said crown. Suffice it to say that at this stage, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the crown is not original or there is an attempt to substitute the same. Pertinently, both the crowns are found in the record even prior to 2018. From perusal of record, there is reason to believe that the record of the temple trust is not maintained meticulously/properly and as a result of which and result of the same in both the crowns being not reflected in the record is possible. To accept the contention of the prosecution that the present Applicant attempted theft is nothing but surmise unsupported by material on record. 10. The allegations made against Applicant in First Information Report are dealt with hereinafter :- Box No. Items Remarks Observation of Court EkaxGlw= js’keklg eksR;klg tMkoh eaxGlw=kP;k ,dk injkps 02 eksrh ukghr- rlsp indkps 02 eksrh ukghr- lu 2011 ps QksVks There is no allegation that the articles themselves dku tksM tMkoh eksR;klg Box No. 1 N= tMkokps eksR;klg lksU;kph dkMh iêh tMkoh Box No. 2 us=tksM tMkoh esuklg - 12 - vYcee/;sgh fnlwu ;sr ukgh- dku tksM e/khy ikukMhe/;s 01 [kMk fnlwu vkysyk ukgh- lu 2011 ps QksVks vYcee/;s [kMk fnlwu ;sr ukgh- N= tMkokps 01 NksVk ekf.kd o 04 ygku eksrh fnlwu ;sr ukghr- lu 2011 ps QksVks vYcee/khy QksVksuqlkj iMrkG.kh dj.ks 'kD; ukgh- Lku 1963 P;k vyadkj jftLVjizek.ks dyxhpk lekos’k eqdwV dGlklg o dyxh iêh tMkoh ;klg vkgs- R;kps ,df=r otu 1842-00 xz We vkgs- iêh tMkoh ;kvyadkjkps FIR uqlkj 01 ekf.kd ukgh ;k fo"k;klph iMrkG.kh dj.ksdfjrk 01 uacjph vyadkj isVh lferh lnL;kale{k iqUgk fnukad 31@08@2023 jksth nqikjh 02-20 oktrk m?kM.;kr vkyh o rikl.kh dj.;kr vkyh- ;kosGh 03 NksVs yky e.kh vyadkjke/;s fnlwu vkys ukghr- Lku 2023 rikl.khr ux dz- 01 e/;s NksVk 01 ygku ekf.kd [kMk fnlwu ;sr ukgh- ux dz- 02 e/;s 05 ekf.kd [kMs fnlwu ;sr ukghr- lu 2011 ps vYcee/;sgh lnjps ekf.kd [kMs ulY;kps ;sr fnlwu fun’kZukl ;srs- tqus miyC/k vYcee/;s ux dz- 01 e/;s 01 ekf.kd fnlwu ;sr ukgh o ux dz- 02 e/;s 02 ekf.kd [kMs fnlwu ;sr ukghr- Uks= tMkoh esuklg Uks= tksMhrhy ,dk us=kps 01 ekf.kd fnlwu ;sr ukgh- tqU;k vYce e/;s o 2011 P;k vYce e/;sgh ekf.kd fnlwu ;sr ukgh- Box No. 3 EkaxGlq= js’keklg tMkoh EakxGlq= okVhrhy 01 ekf.kd o ojhy eaxGlq=kP;k Hkkxkrhy 01 eksrh fnlwu ;sr okVhps aba378.24.odt are missing but it is claimed that valuable stones/pearls are missing from some ornaments. There is no material to indicate that when these aricles have come into the custody of the Applicant the same were not as they are found today but wtih pearls and stones etc. No old photographs are available, to confirm allgation. There is no allegation that the articles themselves are missing but it is claimed that valuable stones/pearls are missing from some ornaments. There is no material to indicate that when these aricles have come into the custody of the Applicant the same were not as they are found today but wtih pearls and stones etc. No old photographs are available, to confirm allgation. Allegations Mahant (deceased). against Hamrojibuva Article is not missing but pearls and stones are EkqdqV lksU;kpk pkanhpk i=k js’keklg Box No. 4 [kMko tksM pkanhps Box No. 5 [kMko tksM pkanhps - 13 - ukgh- miyC/k tqus vYcee/;s fnlwu ;srkr- ijarw 2011 ps vYcee/;sgh ojhy ueqn ekf.kd o eksrh fnlwu ;sr ukghr- vyadkj isVh dz- 03 e/khy eqdqV lksU;kpk gk vyadkj lu 2011 e/khy QksVks vYce izek.ks fnlwu ;srks- ijarw isVh dz- 03 e/khy vyadkjsps QksVks T;k tqU;k vYcee/;s vkgsr R;k vYce e/khy eqdqV gk izR;{k igk.kh dsysY;k osxGk eqdqVkis{kk fnlwu ;sr vkgs- Lku 1963 P;k jftLVj izek.ks 22@@ Hkkj otu vlY;kps fnlwu ;srs- 1- vyadkj MC;krhy fn- 24@06@1976 Pk ;knhoj [kMko tksM pkanhps not seen v’kh uksan vkgs- 2- lu 2011 o lu 2018 ps jftLVjyk lnj vyadkj fnlwu vkyk ukgh vlk 'ksjk vlysyh uksan vkgs- 3- vkt fn- 28@07@2023 jksthP;k rikl.kh e/;s lnj vyadkj fnlwu vkyk ukgh- lnj vyadkj Mcck dz- 04 ps QksVks T;k tquk vYce e/;s vkgsr R;k vYce e/;s lnj vyadkjkpk QksVks fnlwu ;sr ukgh- Lku 1963 P;k jftLVj izek.ks 34 Hkkj otu vlY;kps fnlwu ;srs- 1- vyadkj MC;krhy fn- 24@06@1976 P;k ;knhoj [kMko tksM pkanhps Not Found v’kh uksan fn- 05@08@2000 jksth uksan vkgs- 2- lu 2011 o lu 2018 ps jftLVjyk lnj vyadkj fnlwu vkyk ukgh vlk 'ksjk vlysyh uksan vkgs-- 3- vkt fn- 31@07@2023 jksthP;k rikl.kh e/;s lnj vyadkj fnlwu vkyk ukgh- 4- vyadkj Mck dz- 05 pk tquk vYce miyC/k ukgh- aba378.24.odt missing, which is possible in course of time while use thereof. There is opinion of jeweller that the golden crown is as per old photograph of the same. Till date no contrary evidence shown. There is no ascertainment of the guineness or otherwise of the article. In the list of 1976, it is recorded that this artile is not seen as per entry dated 05.08.2000 There is no allegation that the articles themselves are missing but it is claimed that valuable stones/pearls are missing from some ornaments. There is no material to indicate that when these aricles have come into the custody of the Applicant the same were not as they are found today but wtih pearls and stones etc. No photographs indicating existence of the same. aba378.24.odt It is not the case that Applicant has exclusive custody of this box, like Box No. 6. As per the procedure, the box cannot be opened independently by Applicant. Photographs or record show that the boxes are in sealed condition. 'ksoarhps Qqy pkanh o eksrh & 6 o lksU;kps rqdMs RkkuoVs tksM lksU;kps tMkoh Box No. 7 EkkpiÍk tMkoh EqkdqV pkanhpk js’keklg - 14 - Lku 1963 e/khy jftLVjyk lnj vyadkjkps otu 02 ekls vls ueqn vkgs- rlsp lksU;kps rqdMs o eksrh 06 fnlwu vkys ukghr- lu 2011 ps QksVks vYcee/;s lksU;kps rqdMs o eksrh 6 fnlwu ;srkr- Lknj vyadkjkrhy xksy fjax e/khy izR;sdh 03 [kMs fnlwu ;sr ukghr- lu 1975 o 2011 P;k QksVks vYcee/;sgh [kMs fnlwu ;sr ukghr- Tqkus o lu 2011 ps QksVks vYce e/;s 03 fgjos ikpw fnlwu ;sr ukghr- rlsp vkt jksthP;k rikl.khe/;sgh 03 fgjos ikpw fnlwu ;sr ukghr- Lku 1963 ps jftLVj izek.ks otu 43 Hkkj uewn vlY;kps fnlwu ;srs- lu 1963 ps ;knhuqlkj vkt jksthps rikl.khe/;s lnj vyadkj fnlwu vkyk ukgh- rlsp lu 2011 o 2018 ps jftLVjoj eqdwV pkanhpk fnlwu vkyk ukgh v’kh uksan vkgs- 11. As far as Box Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 are concerned, they are not in exclusive custody of the Applicant. These articles are not used daily. Photographs placed on record by the prosecution indicate that these boxes are kept in one big box and as it can be seen from the photographs that these boxes are sealed. These articles are used only occasionally i.e. during festival times and except in the presence of representative of administration, the same could not have been opened and used. Pertinently, no person from administration has been made accused. - 15 - aba378.24.odt 12. As far as box No. 6 which was exclusively in the custody of the present Applicant is concerned, report indicates as follows :- Box No. Items Remarks Observations of Court Box No. 6 fiaiGiku tMkoh lksU;kps lk[kGhlg UkFk eksR;kph [kMko tksM pkanhpk EkaxGlq= lk[kGhlg 12 inj o 11 iqrG;k It reveals from the report that the said article is not missing but is not in a position to be used. It is claimed that there is a difference the photograph of the article and existing article. There is nothing to show that any expert opinion is sought in this regard to hold so. in It is claimed that there is a difference in the photograph of the article and existing article. There is nothing to show that any expert opinion is sought in this regard to hold so. No photograph to idnicaet it being available in 1975 to attribute its missing to Applicant. There is remark in the ornament register dated 18.01.2009 that these ornaments are sent for melting. uknq#Lr- 1- 14 lk/ks [kMs iMY;kps fnlwu ;srkr- 2- tqU;k vYce e/khy QksVks e/;s o l/;kP;k miyC/k nkxhU;ke/;s Qjd fnlwu ;sr vkgs- rFkkih] lu 2011 ps vYcee/khy QksVks uqlkj lnjpk vyadkj tqGrks vkgs- Lku 1963 jftLVjyk o tqU;k vYce e/khy QksVks e/;s uFk yky [kM;klg fnlwu ;sr vkgs- ijarw l/;kP;k vyadkjkuqlkj nkxhU;ke/;s Qjd fnlwu ;sr vkgs- rFkkih] lu 2011 ps vYce e/khy QksVks uqlkj lnjpk vyadkj tqGrks vkgs- Lku 1963 ps jftLVj izek.ks otu 31 Hkkj vlwu lu 2011 o 2018 ps jftLVjyk uksan fnlwu ;sr ukgh- izR;{k vkt jksth lnj vadkj fnlwu vkyk ukgh- 1963 ps vyadkj jftLVj oj lnj vyadkjkph uksan vkgs R;kps otu 63 Hkkj vkgs- tqus vYce e/;s QksVks miyC/k vkgs- lnj QksVksuqlkj vyadkj vkt jksth fnlwu ;sr ukgh- lu 2011 o 2018 ps vadkj jftLVj o 2011 ps QksVks vYce oj lnj vyadkjkph uksan ukgh- ijarq 2018 ps vyadkj jftLVjoj fn- 18@01@2009 jksth lnj vyadkj forGfo.;kdjhrk tek dj.;kr vkys vls Jh- ukbdokMh fnyhi o egar fpyksthcqok ;kauh lkafxrys vlysph jftLVj iku dz- 104 uksan vkgs- - 16 - aba378.24.odt 13. It is pertinent to note that in the report of the commitee there are observations that missing articles from the custody of Assistant Manager (Religious) include pkanhpk [kMko tksM] pkanhph fcanxh] pkanhph dMh 1] pkanhph ryokj 1 E;kuklg] pkanhps ygku rkV 1 o okVh-. However, he is not made an accused. This Court, therefore, finds substance in the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that this could be a case of over implication, if not false implication. 14. Though it is sought to be argued that there is a huge mis-appropriation to the extent of gold of more than 1.860 kg and silver 20 kg., however, the same gold and silver is said to have been mis-appropriated by accused in Crime No. 323/2020. This is not a case wherein further investigation has been carried out in respect of same crime with intimation to the concerned Court. Filing of charge- sheet against the said accused indicates that prosecution after finding substance in the allegation and on the basis of evidence came to the conclusion that he is responsible for the same and hence, final report is filed before the Court. - 17 - aba378.24.odt 15. Aforestated facts indicate that even without ascertaining that there is actual theft of the articles or there is substitution thereof, offence is registered selectively against Applicant and others. Applicant is aged about 70 years with no criminal history behind him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra & others, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 312 has observed thus:- “ .... The nature and gravity of the accusation and the role palyed by the accused need to be properly comprehended. It is also to be seen whether accusations ahve been made only with the object of injuring or humilating the applicant and impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. It is further held that the Court must evalute the entire available material against the accused very carefully and strict balance has to be maintained beteen the libery of the applicant and theright of the Investigating Agency to carry out investigation.” 16. In considered view of this Court, having regard to the above facts, prima facie this report seems to be selective possibility of over implication is not ruled out. Therefore, Applicant’s liberty deserves to be protected. He is not likely to flee. Appropriate - 18 - aba378.24.odt directions to him to attend concerned police station and appear before the Investigating Officer and to cooperate in the investigation will be sufficient for further effective investigation.
Arguments
Math, (iii) Assistant Manager (Religious), (iv) Shri Palange who was giving service (Sevedari Palange). In the year 2011, the trust committee decided to prepare album of the ornaments from Box Nos. 1 to 7 and accordingly, ornaments were counted, photographs were taken and entry was taken of the same in a separate register. In the year 2018, while seeking transfer of charge from Assistant Manager (Religious), a committee was formed under the chairmanship of Mr. - 3 - aba378.24.odt Amit Bharti and the charge was given from Deelip Naikwadi to Siddheshwar Sugriv. At the time of transfer of said charge, two registers were prepared. Those registers are named as “lksus egar” and “pkanh egar”. In register “lksus egar”, entries are taken in respect of ornaments and articles in possession of the present Applicant and in “pkanh egar” register, entries are taken in respect of silver ornaments in custody of Assistant Manager (Religious). It is further stated therein that in respect of gold or silver articles devoted by the devotees in the counter box kept in the office, two separate registers are maintained. Similarly, 7 photographs of Box Nos. 1 to 7 and ornaments kept therein without mentioning date and day are available with the trust. In 2011, a decision was taken to prepare photo album of the ornaments from Box Nos. 1 to 7. 7 photo albums were prepared and the said photographs were signed by the then Naib Tahsildar. Similarly, on 30.06.2011, a register is maintained of the ornaments and articles. Articles which were not found, entry of the same is also taken. 3. It is further stated that the ornaments/articles kept in Box Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 so also silver articles in the custody of Assistant Manager (Religious) are not used daily but are used - 4 - aba378.24.odt occasionally during festival times. The room wherein these boxes are kept has one lock. There are two keys, one is with Applicant and another is with the office. At the time of removal of valuables, presence of Applicant, Tahsildar and Assistant Manager (Religious) is mandatory. The articles/ornaments from Box No. 6 are kept in the western part of the said room. The said room is exclusively with the Applicant. These articles are used for performing daily rituals. The articles received from the devotees are kept with the trust. It is claimed that since January 2009, gold utilised was in his charge. In the year 2018, gold and silver articles were combine and verified and record is maintained in respect of the same. It is stated that 71 historical coins were not found at the time of taking over of charge by Assistant Manager (Religious). Offence came to be registered against Naikwadi vide Crime No. 323/2020. It is also stated in the report that gold and silver ornaments are melted under supervision of the committee and the said entire process is videographed. 4. The Collector appointed a 12 members Committee for the purpose of submitting report in respect of the ornaments of the goddess, articles which were not found including 71 ancient coins. The number of members of the Committee was increased from 12 to - 5 - aba378.24.odt 16. On 03.10.2023, report was submitted by the said Committee. It is stated by the Committee that gold crown which was found in Box No. 3 is in accordance with the photo album of 2011 but inconsistent with old album. Similarly, from the iron box which is in the custody of Assistant Manager one more gold crown was found. The said gold crown was sent for examination to jeweller who has given report in this regard. It is alleged that the ornaments and gold and silver articles were not found and thus mis-appropriation has been committed of the same. In respect of Box Nos. 1 to 7, 17 articles/ornaments were said to have been mis-appropriated. Allegation is made against the present Applicant as well as then Mahant of the temple. Similarly, separate allegation was made in respect of mis-appropriation of silver ornaments/articles and 12 such ornaments/articles are said to have been mis-appropriated. It is alleged that the Applicant and co-accused were in custody of the said articles/ornaments and hence are responsible for misplacement of the same. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant submits that record indicates that offence came to be registered against Naikwadi in Crime No. 323/2020 wherein same allegations were made in - 6 - aba378.24.odt respect of mis-appropriation of gold and silver articles and ornaments. It is stated that the Applicant herein was witness in the said crime and his statement is also taken. It is his submission that the Applicant is sought to be falsely implicated in this crime in order to protect the real culprits and the Government authorities who could be responsible for the said mis-appropriation. It is his submission that though allegation is made in respect of gold crown being changed, he referred to the opinion given by the Jeweller that on the basis of the photograph, the crown which is available with the Applicant is the same crown. It is his further submission that the report submitted by the Committee also indicates that infact more than the entries in the register actual stock is found in the said box. It is his submission that there is endorsement made by the Committee in the year 2018 that there is possibility of entries being not taken in the register of the ornaments/articles received by way of donation. It is his submission that the allegation in respect of 71 ancient coins going missing does not attribute to the Applicant as the said coins were always in the custody of Assistant Manager and not Mahant. It is his submission that the second First Information Report in respect of the same incident is prohibited by law. He claims that the Applicant is aged about 70 years and in any event his - 7 - aba378.24.odt custodial interrogation is not necessary. He places reliance on following judgments :- (i) Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2821. (ii) Awadesh Kumar Jha @ Akhilesh Kumar Jha and others 2016(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 542. (iii) Tarak Desh Mukharjee & others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh DLD (Cri) 2022-1760 (iv) Prateek Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan and others DLD (Cri) 2024-3247 (v) Sanjeev Nagpaul vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2001 STPL(LE)29918 SC (vi) Sumedh Singh Saini vs. State of Punjab and another Criminal Appeal No. 827/2020. 6. Learned APP opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that there is admission of Applicant himself that he was in the custody of Box Nos. 1 to 7 and thus, the ornaments/articles therein is his responsibility. It is submitted that on the basis of affidavit given by the erstwhile Mahant that from 23.11.1975 the Applicant has assumed charge as Mahant and has taken keys from his predecessor. It is submitted that a Committee was formed by the Collector to ascertain said mis-appropriation which is highlighted in the newspaper. He drew attention of the Court to the report - 8 - aba378.24.odt submitted by the Committee in order to indicate that there are number of articles and though articles are available, they are not in the same form such as precious stones and pearls are found missing from there. He has further argued that on the basis of old photographs the articles are verified and it is clear that there is mis- appropriation of the same. He placed reliance on the statement of the Applicant given during the course of enquiry conducted by the Committee. During the course of hearing, pursuant to the query made by this Court, it is sought to be argued that in respect of gold crown, it is a case of attempted theft. He took this Court through the report indicating articles in 7 boxes more particularly articles in Box No. 6. It is alleged that this is a case of mis-appropriation of 1.860 kg. gold and 20 kg. silver. In response to this submission, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant has drawn attention of the Court to the charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 323/2020 wherein there is allegation of mis-appropriation of exact amount of gold and silver. Learned APP submits that in order to recover the stolen articles, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary. 7.
Decision
ORDER (i) Till next date, in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with Crime No. 0519/2023, registered with Tuljapur Police Station, District Dharashiv, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 381 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like amount. (ii) He shall attend the concerned police station twice in a week for a period of one month and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (iii) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (v) He is further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. - 19 - aba378.24.odt (vi) Learned APP to communicate this order to the concerned Investigating Officer. dyb ( R. M. JOSHI) Judge