SHRIMANT APPAJI PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four petitions seek to involve the jurisdiction of this Court under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for obtaining what has been, for the sake of convenience, described as "anticipatory bail". The petitioners in Criminal Application No. 630 of 1978 is the principal accused in a criminal case registered with the Pachoda Police Station in Paithan Taluka of Aurangabad District. The Crime Register Number is 25 of 1978 and the allegations against the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 630 of 1978 and other petitioners are that pursuant to a criminal conspiracy they have committed forgery of certain documents and further that those documents have been used as genuine documents knowing them to be forged. Sections of the Indian Penal Code under which offences have been alleged are sections 120-B, 192, 193, 196, 197, 218, 466, 467, 471, 477 and section 34 or section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. It may be mentioned at this stage itself that the offences punishable under sections 467 and 477 are punishable with imprisonment for life. According to the skeleton facts as disclosed in the first information report, a copy of which has been made available to me and the facts as mentioned in the judgment of the Court below to which reference will be made a little later, the prosecution alleges that there were proceedings pending under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act. In those proceedings with view to retain some lands the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 630 of 1978, hereinafter referred to as "the principal accused", managed to get changed the record of the schools in which his sons were studying so that the ages of these sons were shown higher than the actual ages. In order to achieve this result, it was also necessary for him to secure applications for admissions of the sons also changed and according to the prosecution, he has done this also. In the conspiracy pursuant to which large-scale forgery took place all the petitioners were participants and therefore, section 120-B has been applied.

(2.) Apprehending arrest, all the four petitioners approached the Sessions Court of Aurangabad for obtaining anticipatory bail. Applications preferred by the petitioners were disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Aurangabad by his judgment and order dated 2nd of June, 1978 by which he rejected all the applications. While so doing, the learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that the petitioners had not made out any special case for being released on anticipatory bail and in the absence of such special case there was no necessity of granting relief under section 438 of the Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon certain observations contained in the judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in (Gurubaksh Singh v. State of Punjab) A.I.R. 1978 P. & H. 1. Against the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, these four petitions are filed. Though three of them have been described as criminal applications, they are criminal revision applications challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is so evident from the averments made in the petitions themselves. That of course will not make any difference to the discussion on law because even if there is an error of law committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, this Court in its revisional jurisdiction can correct the same.

(3.) It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the offence alleged against the petitioners is such that it has completely taken place and the arrest and detention in custody of the petitioners-accused is wholly unnecessary. From the averments made in the first information report and from the circumstances which have emerged from the facts mentioned therein, according to the petitioner, it is abundantly clear that nothing more is likely to be done by the petitioners through the commission of the offence towards the obliteration of the offences. The offences alleged against the petitioners are essentially offences in relation to the documents and little if anything is likely to turn upon the oral testimony of the witnesses and, therefore, releasing the petitioners on bail is not likely to result in the tampering of witnesses. It is also mentioned that the principal accused is a man of substance and not of straw, holding responsible positions in several institutions in his Taluka, and therefore, he is not likely to abscond. The learned Advocates appearing in support of these petitions also criticised the special case theory upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In any case, say the learned Advocates, the case of those petitioners is in fact a special case. The principal accused is not likely to abscond; the other three accused are teachers belonging to a noble profession and they are not likely to abscond or to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. What exactly is the meaning of the special case upon which great reliance was placed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge will be analysed a little later in this judgment. Before at however, it would be necessary to notice the relevant provisions of law.