1. All these applications are preferred by the applicant seeking cancellation of order dated 16.5.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in granting anticipatory bail to the accused alleged to have committed offences under Sections 406, 420, 409, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code registered vide C.R. No.I-17 of 2012 with Udhyognagar Police Station, Porbandar for the irregularities and illegalities committed by them with regard to National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and further allegations are to the extent that false job card were prepared and recipient of the benefit and remuneration to be paid under the scheme are persons who were not even residing in the local periphery of the village and rank outsiders. It is also submitted that in such a huge scam where allegations are of siphoning of pubic money exercise of powers by learned Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail is illegal and deserves to be set right by cancelling the order of anticipatory bail.
2. I have heard learned advocate for the accused.
3. Considering the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat [AIR 1984 SC 372] and Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 SCC (Cri.) 237] for exercise of powers under Section 439(2) of the Code it cannot be said that other than legal consideration weighed with the learned Sessions Judge for exercising powers and keeping in mind law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Reported in [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the accused-respondents are granted anticipatory bail which do not make out a case for this Court to exercise powers under Section 439(2) of the Code.
4. The applications are rejected. Notice discharged in each of the applications. No costs.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// Top