Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a Judgment and Order dated 3rd December, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur whereby and whereunder an Order dated 19-12-2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola granting anticipatory bail in his favour was set aside.

3. Civil Surgeon, Akola lodged a First Information Report on or about 30th November, 2006 alleging that since the year 2000, several officers of the LDH Hospital Murtijapur and National Cooperative Consumer Federation of India Ltd., its authorized suppliers, subordinate suppliers etc. committed criminal misappropriation of the public fund. Appellant was not named therein. Indisputably most of the accused named in the First Information Report or made accused subsequently filed applications for grant of anticipatory bail and/or regular bail which have been allowed. It is stated that brother of the appellant was also arrested. He named the appellant as also the authorized suppliers. It was disclosed by the authorized suppliers that the appellant is the real beneficiary of the amount misappropriated as they were being paid only a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month by him.

4. Appellant applied for and was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Akola subject to the condition that he would attend the office of C.I.D Akola thrice a week between 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. till completion of investigation. Indisputably the said order has been complied with.

5. On an application filed by the appellant for relaxation of the said condition and the response thereto filed by the C.I.D., the said condition was relaxed by an Order dated 18th April, 2008 directing the appellant to attend the office of the C.I.D only twice a month. It is said that the C.I.D itself stated that it was not necessary for him to attend their office thrice a week.

6. Prior thereto the State filed an application purported to be under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court questioning the correctness of the said order granting anticipatory bail to the appellant on 19-12-2007. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said application has been allowed.

7. Mr. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court has committed a serious error in passing the impugned Judgment as by reason whereof anticipatory bail granted in favour by the learned Sessions Judge has illegally been cancelled. It was urged that keeping in view the fact that the appellant had abided by the conditions laid down in the order granting anticipatory bail and the investigating agency itself having given out that the strict conditions imposed thereby may suitably be relaxed, the High Court must be held to have committed a serious error in passing the impugned Judgment.

8. Ms. Aparajita Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a serious error in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant on the premise that the period involved in respect of commission of the offence was 2001-2007; whereas in fact the period involved was 1-04-2005 to 7-10-2006. It was urged that no reliance should have been placed on the statement of the store keeper of the hospital that the medicines etc. allegedly supplied by the authorized suppliers had been received, inasmuch as he himself being an accused must have made such a statement with a view to save his own skin.

Appellant was the kingpin and the amount involved in the matter is about 26 crores which has been embezzled by the accused without making any supplies and by raising bogus bills.

The High Court in its impugned Judgment has rightly pointed out that there exists a distinction between an appeal from an order granting bail and an order of cancellation of bail.

9. Correctness or otherwise of the orde