By the present application, the applicant who is the informant, on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 384 of 2015, for offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondent no.1.

2. The respondent no.1 has been accused of preparing and sanctioning eight loan cases with regard to non-existent persons, so as to enable such persons to get benefit under the NBCFDL scheme conducted by the Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati and Bhatkya Jamati Development Corporation, Latur. After aforesaid offence was registered, the applicant applied under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which application came to be allowed by the Sessions Court by order dated 9th December, 2015. This order is sought to be cancelled by the applicant.

3. Mr. Malte, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Judge of the Sessions Court was not justified in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent no.1. He referred to the reports dated 21st September, 2015 and 5th October, 2015, to submit that on bare reading of said reports it was clear that the respondent no.1 had sanctioned the loan cases with a view to defraud the corporation. He submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, without considering the documents filed on record and by treating the annual report to be the audit report, proceeded to grant anticipatory bail. According to him, such relief ought to have been refused and interrogation of the respondent no.1 was necessary. He termed the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge to be perverse and on that ground sought its cancellation. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., 2016 (1) SCC 146 and judgments of learned Single Judge in the case of Yogesh Duryodhan Murkut (Dr.) vs. State of Mah. & ors., 2013 (4) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 758 and Ramesh Manik Patil vs. State of Mah. & anr., 2015 (4) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 190. He also sought to rely upon certain other documents that were not placed on record to substantiate is prayer for cancellation of the aforesaid order.

4. The application was opposed by Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.1. According to him, the parameters for cancellation of anticipatory bail are well settled and the present application did not satisfy any such ingredients. He submitted that the present applicant had no locus to challenge the order granting anticipatory bail and that the prosecution had not sought any such relief of cancellation of anticipatory bail. According to him, the report in question had been lodged merely because of internal disputes relating to service matter between the applicant and the respondent No.1. According to him, the respondent No.1 was entitled for promotion on the post of Managing Director and with a view to prejudice said claim, the aforesaid complaint had been filed. He then submitted that the learned Judge of the Sessions Court after considering all relevant aspects of the matter, had granted anticipatory bail on 9th December, 2015, which was almost a year ago. The respondent No.1 had co-operated in the investigation by complying with all the conditions. He, therefore, submitted that the application was liable to be rejected. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of U.P. Through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 21.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material placed on record. At the outset, it may be stated, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent No.1 that it was not open for the applicant, who was the complainant, to seek cancellation of anticipatory bail cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinb