1. This application is filed under section 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 -Shri. Gulabrao Bapurao Deokar in Crime No. 13/2006 registered in City Police Station, Jalgaon for offences under sections 120-B, 406, 409, 411, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 109 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and under section 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1)(c) and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequent to grant of bail by Special Court, charge-sheet came to be filed and now the Special Case bearing No. 4/2012 is pending against the respondent No. 2. Both the sides are heard.

2. The learned Special Prosecutor appointed by the State supported the application.

3. The crime is registered on the basis of report dated 2.2.2006 given by the Commissioner of Jalgaon Municipal Corporation. The report and the record shows that there was scheme prepared by Jalgaon Municipal Corporation in the year 1997 for making construction of houses for slum dwellers. Around 11424 houses were to be constructed and 9 places for such construction were selected. The estimated cost of this scheme was Rs. 8913.74 lacs and out of this amount, the amount of Rs. 7519.14 lacs was to be taken from HUDCO as a loan. The Commissioner found that there was no resolution of the Corporation in respect of necessity of such scheme and also for the implementation of such scheme. For preparing plan estimate, some architects were appointed without calling tenders by publishing tender notice and to the architects the fees at the rate of 3% of the estimated cost (Rs. 250/-lacs) was paid. One High Power Committee was shown to be constituted for this work and one Pradip Gyanchand Raisoni was shown to be made President of this Committee. There is no provision in Corporation Act for constitution of such committee.

4. Commissioner realized that at the time of preparation of the scheme, there was no space available at the 9 sites of the Corporation, where the construction could have been made. Some lands owned by private persons, were considered for the scheme. There was no technical approval to the aforesaid estimates prepared, but in spite of that, public notice was given and tenders were called from the contractors for making construction. Only two builders filled the tenders. There was no response shown to the tender notice due to change made in the initial conditions. The initial period of 2-3 years fixed for construction was reduced to 9 months and during this period, it was practically impossible to make the construction.

5. M/s. Khandesh Builders filled the tender of 42% to 47% above the estimated costs. Another Builder M/s. Golani Brothers filled the tender in respect of three places and it was 22.25% to 27% above the estimated costs. Even when there was the tender of lower price of M/s. Golani Brothers, Khandesh Builders was called for negotiations on 22.4.1999. As per the record, there was the possibility of relaxation of some conditions shown by Khandesh Builders, but no negotiation was done on those conditions. In the negotiations, mobilization advance was reduced to 15% from 30% and there was relaxation only in this condition proposed by Khandesh Builders. In the tender notice, it was made clear that no mobilization advance will be given and the construction work will started only after actual possession of the site is received. As the site was not in possession, the decision of Corporation to give such mobilization advance was to the benefit of the contractor as the contractor was to get the advance amount, which was huge amount before receiving the possession of the site for construction. The Corporation was required to pay interest on this amount. When it was made clear in the tender notice that there will not be any concession in payment of octroi on the raw material, which was to be used by the contractor, such benefit was given. Khandesh Builders was allowed to use cement blocks instead of bricks which further reduced the