The court upheld the bail orders by considering the delay in lodging the FIR, the nature of the dispute, and the principles established in relevant case laws.

JUDGMENT

Vibha Kankanwadi, J. - Both the applications have been filed by the informant to challenge the order of bail granted to respondents No.4 and 5 in Criminal Bail application No.692 of 2021 dated 20-09-2021 by learned additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalna, and bail granted by learned additional Sessions Judge-5, Jalna to respondents No.2 to 7 in Criminal Bail application No.361 of 2021, No.637 of 2021, No.638 of 2021 and No.643 of 2021, in connection with Crime No.113 of 2021 dated 08-06-2021, registered with Police Station Jafrabad, District Jalna, for the offence punishable under Section 166, 167, 193, 406, 409, 420, 434, 464, 468, 471, 474 r.w.34 of IPC.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. R. M. Deshmukh for applicant, learned aPP Mr. a. M. Phule for respondent-State, and learned advocate Mr. S. J. Salunke for respondents No.4 and 5 in aCB No.201 of 2021 and respondents No.2 to 7 in aCB No.130 of 2021.

3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the informant that the learned additional Sessions Judge erred in observing that the role of the applicants i.e. present respondents No.4 and 5 in aCB No.201 of 2021 is similar to the role alleged to the Talathi and Circle Officer to whom already anticipatory bail has been granted. Ground of parity has been wrongly applied. Preparing false entries cannot be done as a part of official duty. a government officer has to be honest and should discharge his duties as per the law and rules. Merely because those persons are government servants and there is no question of their fleeing away, cannot be the ground to grant them anticipatory bail. The learned additional Sessions Judge failed to consider that the offence has been committed in a designed manner and the mutation has been effected in respect of one Sunil Damu Hiwale and others. about 2 H 28 R land has been shown to be transferred in their names, and thereafter, they have raised either loan or disposed of the property. The respondents No.2 to 4 in aCB No.130 of 2021 were the then revenue officers who had taken part in the crime and respondents No.5 to 7 are those persons in whose name the land has been thereafter mutated. When such huge fraud has taken place, the bail ought not to have been granted to the respondents.

4. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant has relied on Nathu Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 64, on the point as to what are the considerations for considering an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

He further relied on Kirender Sarkar and Others Vs. State of assam, reported in (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 342, wherein it was held that, 'the FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopaedia of the entire events and non-naming of one of few of the accused persons cannot amount to disbelieving the informant.'

Further reliance has been placed on Jai Prakash Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and anr.Etc., Criminal appeal No.525-526 of 2012 (arising Out of SLP (Cri.) Nos.304-305 of 2012), on the point of considerations of for the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Further, in Sudhir Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, Criminal appeal Nos.1286-1287 of 2015 and other matters (arising out of SLP (Cri.) Nos.1753-54 of 2015), it has been held that, 'the gravity of the offence, circumstances of the case, particularly, the allegations of corruption and misappropriation of public funds released for rural development, and further considering the conduct of the appellants and the fact that the investigation is held up as the custodial interrogation of the appellants could not be done due to the anticipatory bail, we are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by the additional Sessions Jduge, Jalgaon.'

Further reliance has been placed on Centrum Financial Services Limited Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and anr., (Criminal appeal No.94 of 2022, decided on 28 January 2022, wherein it has been held that, 'the Court should be