Shaikh Supdu Shaikh Mansuri v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

:: 1 ::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.156 OF 2023 Shaikh Supudu Shaikh Mansuri ... APPLICANT

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & anr.

... RESPONDENTS .......

Mr. A.K. Bhosle, Advocate for applicant Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for respondents .......

CORAM :

R.G. AVACHAT, J.

DATE : 9th MARCH, 2023 P.C. :

Heard. The applicant was a Secretary of the educational institute during the period from 2014 to 2019. The First Information Report has been lodged by Haroon Shaikh, ExPresident of the educational institute. As per the prosecution case, three teachers were in fact employed/ recruited in the year 2019, but shown to have been recruited in the year 2012. One of these three is the son of present applicant. Salary bills for the period from 2012 to 2019 were prepared and even submitted. Fortunately, on the intervention of the Head Master/ first informant, the bills were put on hold. The applicant is alleged to have prepared false and fabricated muster roll and

:: 2 ::

roster as well. The applicant was Secretary of the Institute, meaning thereby, he had authority to prepare all such documents.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, there are two groups in the educational institute. Now the other group is in power. The teachers who were appointed have given statement in favour of the applicant during enquiry made by the Education Officer. The charge sheet has been filed. He, therefore, urged for grant of the application. According to him, co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail except one who was arrested and released on regular bail.

3.

Considered the submissions advanced. The learned A.P.P. would submit that the applicant is not innocent and he is, therefore, not entitled for anticipatory bail. According to him, the applicant being the Secretary of the institute during the period from 2014 to 2019, prepared false documents in the nature of muster roll and roster. According to the prosecution, it was the applicant who prepared salary bills of the persons who were not in the employment during the period from 2012 to 2019. All the bills were prepared ante-dated. The Education Officer was also hand in gloves. The learned A.P.P. is, therefore, right in submitting that the applicant was not innocent. This

:: 3 ::

Court is at one with the submissions made by learned A.P.P. Involvement of the applicant in the offence is writ large. He is, therefore, not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 4.

In the result, the application fails. The same is rejected.

5.

Ad-interim protection that was granted on 16/2/2023 to continue for next three weeks.

(R.G. AVACHAT, J.) fmp/-