1
Cri. Bail Appln. No.520 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK,
AT – NASHIK.
(Presided over by Mr. M. H. Shaikh)
Criminal Bail Application No.520 of 2022
CNR No.MHNS010020402022
Madhav Kamaji Khairge
Age : 36 years, Occ : Service
R/o : At­Dour, Post­Halda,
Tal. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded.

… Applicant
V/S
State of Maharashtra
Through – P.I. Nashik Road
Police Station, Nashik
(CR. No.I­116/2022)
.. Respondent/State.

Appearance :
Ld. Adv. Shri. for Applicant.
Ld. A.P.P. Shri. Sachin Gorwadkar for Respondent/State.
Shri. R. S. Muntode, PSI (I.O.) present.

ORDER BELOW EXH. No.1
(Delivered on 10th May, 2022)
1.

This is an application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail in CR No.I­116/2022
registered with the respondent Nashik­Road Police Station for an
offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2.

Perusal of the F.I.R. reflects that, applicant and other
two accused being the Officers of Jail Authority in collusion with each
2
Cri. Bail Appln. No.520 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
other for their personal monetary gains scratches and changed the
dates in the Register No.3 and No.6, which was in their possession, so
as to benefit the intimates of Jail for their pre­mature release.
3.

It is the case of the applicant that, he is accused No.2 in
the said Crime and Jailor, Grade­II and was appointed at Nashik­
Road Jail from 07.07.2016 to 31.10.2018 and from 11.07.2016 at
Judicial Section in Nashik­Road Jail. The custody of registers is with
Jailor, Grade­I and not the applicant. As regards prisoner Guntuka
inspection of record was done in October­2018 and no remarks were
found and therefore applicant is not responsible for the allegations
made against him. As far as, Venkataramlu prisoner is concerned, the
applicant brought to the notice of accused No.1 and it was sanctioned
by accused No.1 and Superintendent of Jail, who is not accused in
this Crime. As far as, prisoner Vilas Shirke is concerned, remission
period was reduced legally as per the direction of Additional I.G.,
Prison. There is an internal rivalry amongst the Officers of the Jail.
Promotion was denied to the applicant. Applicant is victim of
circumstances. Case is based on documents. All the documents are
with the Jail Authority. Nothing is to be recovered or discovered at
the instance of applicant. Applicant is ready to abide by the terms
and conditions. Therefore, prayed to allow the application.
4.

Respondent filed their say vide Exh.05 and objected on
the ground that, investigation is at preliminary stage, whatever
investigation is carried­out, the involvement of this applicant
alongwith other co­accused is found. The Register No.3 and No.6 are
to be seized, which is not traceable in the Jail. So also the documents
pertaining to leave record of the prisoners. The offence alleged is
3
Cri. Bail Appln. No.520 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
serious in nature. Custodial interrogation is necessary. Therefore,
prayed to reject the application.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant and Ld. A.P.P. for
State. Gone through the contents of the F.I.R. and the authorities
relied by Ld. Advocate for the applicant. So also the police­paper
produced for inspection.
6.

Upon hearing and going through the material placed on
record, what can be gathered is that the applicant was serving in
Nashik­Road Jail, at the relevant time, in the Judicial Section. The
Register No.3 and No.6 pertains to the entry of the prisoners and
after completion of sentence. Both these registers i.e. No.3 and No.6
though are in custody as per the rules with Jailor, Grade­I still the
actual entries were made by the applicant and the other accused
persons. In the preliminary investigation, the Jailor, Grade­I Mr. Sali’s
name has also cropped­up as per the I.O., which is the allegation of
this applicant that, there is a political rivalry in the Jail. There is a
statement of the prisoner, who has name the applicant and other
accused persons, who have taken money to release the prisoners pre­
maturely. This Court finds that the registers and the leave record,
which are not traceable with the Jail, for that and for the correction
and the whitener, which were made in the registers in that regard,
interrogation of the applicant is necessary by the Police.
7.

As far as, the authorities relied by Ld. Advocate for the
applicant, which are as follows :­
(i)
“State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v/s Balchand @ Baliay, by the
Hon’ble Apex Court (1977) 4 SCC 308”.

4
(ii)
Cri. Bail Appln. No.520 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
“Joginder Kumar v/s State of U.P. & Ors., by the
Hon’ble Apex Court (1994) 4 SCC 260”.

(iii) “Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit v/s State of Maharashtra,
by the Hon’ble Apex Court (2018) 11 SCC 458”.
(iv)
8.

“Siddharth v/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., by the
Hon’ble Apex Court (2022) 4 SCC 676”.
I have gone through those authorities. The first authority
is against the order of acquittal, wherein the accused appeared and
was enlarged on bail, we are dealing with the pre­arrest bail.
Therefore this authority is not applicable to our case in hand.
9.

The second authority deals with the rights of arrested
person and the violation of human rights and other aspects. Further
on suspicion the arrest can not be made was observed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court. In our case in hand, there is a preliminary inquiry
conducted by the Jail Authority and the applicant and co­accused
persons were held responsible for the said act. Therefore, there is an
involvement and not a suspicion to the I.O. Therefore this authority is
not applicable to our case in hand.
10.

The third authority is as regards the unlawful activities
act and the bail was granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court. We are
dealing with the pre­arrest bail, therefore, consideration are different,
then the regular bail. Therefore this authority is not applicable to our
case in hand.
11.

The last authority is concerned, in this authority the I.O.

had completed investigation and anticipatory bail was rejected. On
5
Cri. Bail Appln. No.520 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
the ground that, Charge­sheet is ready to be filed and it was
mandatory to arrest accused. In our case in hand, it is not so.
Therefore this authority is not applicable to our case in hand.
12.

For the forgoing reasons and discussions and in the
above facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that, the
discretion of bail can not be invoked in favour of the applicant. In the
result, the following order is passed.
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No.520/2022
stands rejected & disposed off accordingly.
MUSHTAQUE
HUSSAIN
SHAIKH
Place : Nashik.
Date : 10/05/2022
Digitally signed by
MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN
SHAIKH
Date: 2022.05.10
17:46:53 +0530
(M. H. Shaikh)
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.