APPLN/5811/2009 of VIJAYA ROHIDAS MASKE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA on 26 December 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5811 OF 2009

Sau. Vijaya Rohidas MaskeV/s.The State of Maharashtra

.. Applicant

.. Respondent

Mr. J. G. Reddy for the Applicant.Mrs. P. P. Shinde, A. P. P. for Respondent-State.

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA,J. [VACATION JUDGE]

DATED : DECEMBER 26, 2009.

P.C. :

By this Application, the Applicant is seeking Anticipatory Bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. According to the Applicant she is falsely implicated in this matter by the prosecution under C. R. No. 3087 of 2009, registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur City, Solapur for alleged offences under section 7, 8, 13(1)(d) with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Anticipatory Bail Application of the Applicant being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1633 of 2009 has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge – I, Solapur by his order dated 19[th] December, 2009. The Applicant apprehends her arrest at the hands of the police in the above C. R. and hence, the Applicant is constrained to approach this Court with the present application.

2.The Applicant has stated in the Application that according to the prosecution one Mr. Jadhav has applied for the post of Lab Technician in Government Vishpayan Medical College, Solapur. He had approached one Sau. Anjali Dhende, working as a Technician in the said Medical College, who demanded Rs. 40,000/- for giving an appointment letter to the said Mr. Jadhav. Since Mr. Jadhav was not in a position to give the amount so demanded, he made a complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau on 5[th] December, 2009. A trap was laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau and Sau. Anjali Dhende was allegedly caught red handed accepting the amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the said Mr. Jadhav. On the same day she was arrested and an F.I.R. was registered at Solapur Police Station at Solapur City, being C.R. No. 3087 of 2009 for the alleged offences under section 7, 8, 13(1)(d) with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the same day the Accused Sau. Anjali Dhende applied for bail and she was released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur. According to the Applicant, thereafter there appeared a news item in newspaper in respect of the arrest of said Sau. Anjali Dhende by the Anti Corruption Bureau. It was further mentioned that the said demand of bribe was made by said Sau. Anjali Dhende at the instance of the present Applicant. The Applicant thereafter moved an application seeking anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur which Court had granted bail to Sau. Anjali Dhende, but the Application made by the Applicant was rejected.

3.I have perused the order dated 19[th] December, 2009 of the learned District Judge-I, Solapur rejecting the Applicant’s seeking Application anticipatory. The only ground on which the bail has been rejected is that “there is material to show involvement of Applicant” The learned Sessions Judge has nowhere stated what is the material nor has he discussed the alleged material. It is submitted by the learned A. P. P. that in the complaint, the complainant has stated that he was told by the said Sau. Anjali Dhende that she was required to give the money to the Applicant. Upon this Court today inquiring with

the A. P. P. whether Sau. Anjali Dhende in the course of investigation informed the investigating officer that she was collecting the amount on behalf of the Applicant, this Court was informed that no such statement was made by her. Also Sau. Anjali Dhende has admittedly not made any such allegation in her bail application before the Sessions Judge, Solapur. The investigating officer despite the said statement in the complaint has initially not taken any action against the Applicant and only Sau. Anjali Dhende is named in the F.I.R. as the accused. No independent/incriminating material is produced before this Court to show the involvement of the Applicant in the alleged offence. In the light of what is stated hereinabove question of custodial interrogation of the Applicant does not arise. The Applicant is a Class-II Officer in the Medical College who is on the verge of her retirement. The investigating officer is not even aware of her position in the said College and infact upon inquiry by this Court as to the current designation of the Applicant, wrongly instructed the A. P. P. to make a statement that she is a Civil Surgeon. This shows that he has not even updated himself with the basic facts of the case. In the above facts and circumstances, I pass the following order :