High Court · 2002
Legal Reasoning
ABA 799/24 & ors1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD946 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 799 OF 2024SUNITA AMRUTLAL CHAUDHARIVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 988 OF 2024DAGDU SHAMRAO BORSEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 989 OF 2024BHARTI PANDITRAO DESHMUKHVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1434 OF 2024PRAKASH POONAMCHAND GUJARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1435 OF 2024RAJENDRA MURALIDHAR WANIVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1436 OF 2024LOTAN BHATU CHAUDHARIVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1437 OF 2024RAJENDRA PANDIT CHAUDHARI
Legal Reasoning
ABA 799/24 & ors2VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1909 OF 2024AMRUT KESHAV KASARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…Advocate for Applicants in all matters : Mr. R.D. BiradarAPP for Respondents/State in all matters : Mr. B.B. Bhise Advocate for assisting APP in ABA 799/24 : Mr. M.R. Wagh…CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :05.02.2025PER COURT : 1.Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned APP for therespondents-State and Mr. M.R. Wagh, learned advocate assisting APP inABA No. 799/2024.2.The applicants in above matters are apprehending arrest inconnection with Crime No. 86/2024 dated 12.4.2024 registered with SongirPolice Station, District Dhule for the offences punishable under sections420, 465, 467, 466 and 471 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.3.In all these matters, this Court has granted interim protection to theapplicants on 11.6.2024 in ABA No. 799/2024, on 24.6.2024 in ABA Nos.988 & 989 of 2024, on 20.8.2024 in ABA Nos. 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437 of2024 and on 31.10.2024 in ABA No. 1909/2024. The learned counsel for theapplicants submits that they have cooperated with the investigation.Primarily the case against the applicants is that they have applied for ABA 799/24 & ors3pensionary benefits on the basis of fraudulent documents, which are notedin para 9 of the affidavit in reply filed by the Education Officer, ZillaParishad, Dhule, as under :-“9.I say and submit that, after perusal of the documentsproduced in the said inquiry following facts were revealed;i.That the Applicant was granted approval by thenEducation Officer only for one year i.e. 1995-96, as AssistantTeacher.(unaided post).ii.There was no approval of continuity of service of theApplicant.iii.There was break in service (01.06.1997 to01.01.2002) of the Applicant.iv.Without there being any order of condoning the saidservice break from the concerned authorities, the Applicantwith the help of the then Head Master took annual salaryincrements and effect was taken in her service record toclaim future benefits.”4.It is stated that although there was break in service of the applicantsfrom 1.6.1997 to 1.1.2002, the applicants without there being order ofcondoning the said service break from the conerned authority, with the helpof the then Head Master took annual salary increments and effect was takenin service record of the applicants to claim the future benefits.5.From perusal of the record, it is also noticed that the applicants(plaintiffs) have preferred R.C.S. No. 72/1998 for declaration andmandatory injunction, in which following order is passed on 6.12.2002 :-“1.The suit is partly decreed with costs.2.The plaintiffs are entitled to relief of absorptionaccording to their seniority on regular pay scale and the ABA 799/24 & ors4defendant Nos. 1 has directed to absorb the plaintiffs in N.G.Bagul High School, Songir, according to their seniority witheffect from 1st January 2002.3.It is hereby declared that the decion of defendant No.1 for closing of Kanya Shala Songir and the order ofwithdrawal of recognition by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 isillegal.4.The plaintiffs claim regarding back wages anddamages stands dismissed.5.The claim of the defendant No. 1 regarding declarationthat all the ordes passed by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 inrespect of Kanya Shala Songir and Ex-Head-Mistress, as wellas the appointment of plaintiffs be declared as null and voidand regarding mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffNo. 1 to hand over the documents to the defendant No. 1stands dismissed as prayed by way of counter claim.6.A decree be drawn up accordingly.”6.In the appeal filed i.e. Civil Appeal No. 31/2002 against the saiddecree before the District Court, Dhule, in which following order was passedon 27.8.2004 :-“i.The appeal is hereby partly allowed.ii.The judgment and decree passed by the trial Courtdeclaring the decision of defendant No. 1, closing KanyaVidyalaya, Songir and the order of withdrawal of recognitionby the defendants 2 and 3 as illegal, is hereby set aside. Therelief of declaration sought by the plaintiffs in that regard ishereby stands rejected.iii.However, the judgment and decree passed by the trialCourt as regards to absorption of plaintiffs according to theirseniority on regular pay scale in N.G. Bagul High School,Songir, with effect from 1st January 2002 is herebyconfirmed. ABA 799/24 & ors5iv.Considering the particular facts and circumstances ofthe matter the parties to bear their own costs.”7.In view of the order passed by the District Court in appeal, theapplicants herein had applied for pensionary benefits after their retirementand are getting pensionary benefits. Out of all the applicants, two applicantsare still in service. It is stated that the present Head Master has madegrievance to the Education Officer and on the basis of the same, the presentF.I.R. is registered against the applicants contending therein that theapplicants, without condoning the service break from the concernedauthorities have applied for pensionary benefits on the basis of fraudulentdocuments and are getting the pensionary benefits.8.In pursuance of the F.I.R., Criminal Bail Applicatin No. 406/2024 wasfiled for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and the same wasrejected by the Sessions Court vide order dated 9.5.2024, by observing atpara No. 6, as under :-“6. The case papers are produced for perusal by the policeand also by the applicant and the informant. Havingconsidered the papers it is apparent that the sanction of girlsHigh School, to which the applicant and other staff memberswere appointed, came to be withdrawn in 1997. Thereafterthough the staff members’ suit was decreed by the CivilCourt and confirmed by the District Court, the said staffmembers were directed to be absorbed from 1" January,2002 with salary and allowances. But the claim of said staffmembers regarding back-wages and allowances wasrejected. It is clear that said staff members were not entitledto any salary and allowances in respect of the period from1997 till their absorption in 2002 onwards. However, it isapparent that the applicant issued the recognitioncertificates in favour of staff members Prakash, Lotan,Rajendra Wani, Bharti Deshmukh and Rajendra Chaudhari, ABA 799/24 & ors6showing them to be in service including for the period ofgirls High School. Thus, by providing false information, theapplicant apparently caused financial loss to the Governmentand gain to the said staff members. The recognitioncertificates also reveal that the same are signed by theapplicant showing herself to be Head Mistress, when actuallyshe is not. Thus, at this stage there is material to show thatthe applicant has committed the offences of forgery andcheating. Her custodial interrogation is necessary toinvestigate as to where she committed the forgery, was anyone else assisting her. In this backgroud, this Court is notinclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence,order as follows is passed”9.The learned Sessions Court has held that at this stage there ismaterial to show that the applicants have committed the offences of forgeryand cheating and their custodial interrogation is necessary to investigate asto where they committed the forgery. Prima-facie, the above observationsof the Sessions Court are erronous and based on the erronous interpretationof the orders of the civil courts. The order of the civil court is that theplaintiffs (applicants herein) are entitled to relief of absorption according totheir seniority on regular pay scale and the defendant Nos. 1 was directedto absorb the plaintiffs in another school according to their seniority witheffect from 1st January 2002. Although the applicants were not held entitledto salary, but their seniority was protected. The applicants have notreceived the salary for the period they were out of service. In view of theorders of the civil courts, the applicants have applied for pensionary benefitsand the same are given to the applicants. It was the duty of the EducationOfficer to verify the record and implement the orders of the Court. In theinstant case, the applicants have applied for pension on the basis of ordersof the civil courts and the concerned authorities have sanctioned pension to ABA 799/24 & ors7the employees. In the event the authorities are of the view that pension iserronously granted, the authorities may take appropriate action in thatregard by following the due process of law. Prima facie, there is nocriminality involved in the matter. In any event the evidence required toprosecute the applicants is documentary and in possession of the EducationDepartment, as such no custodial interrogation is necessary. It is alsosubmitted by the applicants that the proposal of pension is also signed bythe present Head Master, who has raised the grievance before theEducation Officer. It is the inter-se dispute between the applicants and thepresent Head Master, which has given rise to the F.I.R. Considering thefacts and circumstances of the case, as noted above I hold that anticipatorybail can be granted to the applicants.10.In view of the above, all the applications are allowed and the interimprotection granted by this Court in favour of the applicants is confirmed onthe following terms : i]The applicants shall attend the police station as and whenrequired.ii]The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of theprosecution in any manner. They shall not influence the informant,witnesses and other persons concerned with the case. iii.The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and alsoin the proceedings before the trial Court.11.In the event, the applicants violate any of the conditions specified inthis order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.
Decision
ABA 799/24 & ors812.It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limitedto the disposal of the present anticipatory bail applications and the trialCourt shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by theobservations made hereinabove.13.The applications stand disposed of. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]SSC/This order is corrected by order dated 17.02.2025