The main legal point established in the judgment is the misuse of anticipatory bail to obstruct investigation and the need for custodial interrogation to uncover fraud and misappropriation of government funds.

1. All the applications are filed under section 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in C.R. Nos. 71/13 and 73/13 registered in Dharangaon Police Station, Dharangaon for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 477-A, r/w. 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and sections 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act' for short).

2. Learned counsel for respondent/accused Shri. Gangakhedkar from Criminal Application Nos. 4527 and 4529 of 2013 argued the matters. The learned APP also argued and he supported the applicant by submitting that the chargesheet could not be filed due to absence of custody of the applicants and the investigation could not be completed. Learned counsel Mrs. Rashmi Gaur for respondent/accused in Criminal Application Nos. 4526 and 4528 of 2013 submitted that her client has taken away the brief from her and so, she does not want to argue. In the first session, this Court had expressed that this Court will not be granting more time and as the time was given to the same advocate in the past, due to which the matter was adjourned from time to time and it came before this Court after one year, no further time will be given and no excuse will be heard. Upon that, learned counsel Mrs. Rashmi Gaur had submitted that she would argue in the second sessions and so, the learned counsel for the applicant was heard. In the second session, learned counsel Mrs. Rashmi Gaur submitted that she has specific instructions from her client not to argue the matters and she avoided to argue the matters. This Court has expressed that this Court will not allow learned counsel to withdraw the appearance in view of the peculiar facts of the case and the fact that it is she, who had sought time in those matters and due to her seeking of time, the matters could not be disposed of for the period of one year.

3. Present matters, atleast, the first two matters are the glaring examples as to how fraud is played on Court. These cases are also instances of the tactics played in the Court to protract the decision of the matters. These cases are also instances of the effect of the orders of anticipatory bail which virtually stopped the investigation of the matters. First time, the first two matters came before this Court on 6.9.2013. The matters again came before this Court on 10.12.2013 and 11.12.2013.

4. On 11.12.2013 this Court had expressed that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on 13.12.2013 the matters will be heard and disposed of. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, inquiry was made with the learned counsels, who had represented the respondent of the first two proceedings (respondent Chandrakant Wagh) and they were requested to make statements with regard to the manner in which the previous proceedings were disposed of. This Court is mentioning those statements made by the counsels. It appears that steps were then taken like filing of the proceedings like quashing of the F.I.R. itself by this respondent. In view of the procedure of this Court, the proceeding filed for quashing of the F.I.R. lies before the Division bench and the present matters were also tagged with those matters. On 13.11.2014 these matters came to be removed from the board of the Division Bench as the writ petitions filed for quashing of the F.I.R. were withdrawn on that date. Thus, for the period of around nine months, the matters were kept before Division Bench by playing tactics like filing writ petitions for quashing of the F.I.R. and after the period of nine months, those proceedings were withdrawn and thus, the matters again came before the regular Court. The aforesaid circumstances show as to how the tactics are being played in the Court, even in the High Court for protracting the decisions of the matters. Such tactics were played as the concerned apprehe