Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. The applicants in Criminal Application Nos. 475 of 2012 and 208 of 2012 have prayed for leave to assist the learned Special Public Prosecutor. In view of nature of contest, both the applications are allowed. 3. Criminal Application No. 52 of 2012 is for anticipatory bail. Applicants are three in number. They have been named as accused along with many other in Crime No. 13 of 2006, registered with Jalgaon City Police Station, under Sections 409, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri P.M. Shah, learned Special Public Prosecutor and both learned Advocates, who have appeared to assist the prosecution. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Shri P.M. Shah appearing for the applicants addressed following submissions in support of the prayer:- (a) The F.I.R. lodged by Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation Jalgaon, it is actuated with mala fides and is propelled politically. (b) The applicant No. 2 was a Mayor. Decisions taken or orders passed by the applicant No. 2 were in anticipation of approval of General body ¼ mesn ekU;rsus ½. (c) No decision was taken by any individual, the Mayor or by other corporator, applicants in personal capacity. (d) All decisions of applicant No. 2 were approved or ratified by General Body and the General Body had never expressed any grudge or demour about these decisions. (e) The incident of proposing the scheme and invitation of tenders, all cannot by any permutation be regarded as decisions or actions which were actuated with intention to defraud the council. (f) The function undertaken by the corporators is in exercise of its executive function as the local self government, and is based on collective wisdom. (g) The work of governance is not, nor can it be done with finest arithmetical or mechanic precision. (h) The executive business always needs flexibility and latitude for moulding as regards the process of decision making. (i) The work by the Municipal Corporation Jalgaon relating to housing complexes for slum dwellers done in past and was appreciated for its quality and magnitude. Even now the work is in progress. (j) Advances given to contractors are given to expedite the work and against work done or material brought on the site. (i) The work by the Municipal Corporation Jalgaon relating to housing complexes for slum dwellers done in past and was appreciated for its quality and magnitude. Even now the work is in progress. (j) Advances given to contractors are given to expedite the work and against work done or material brought on the site. Therefore, the interest of Corporation is not jeopardised. (k) The contracts are subsisting and the contractors would be willing to refund the advances taken by them in lump sum if need arises, apart that part of advance is being recouped by proportionate deduction from each running account bill. (l) Two successive general elections of Corporation took place after the decision/action complained of were taken. Two newly elected general bodies of Corporation were elected and have entered the office in succession. None amongst the general bodies have discontinued the work, already commenced, or have revoked any work yet not commenced. Nobody had found fault with the decision and/or the work. (m) The scheme for housing of slum dwellers is duly backed by the State Government. The loan of HUDCO was counter guaranteed by the Government. Good faith and bona fides will have to be presumed when such Governmental support is vivid. (n) The applicants have been in conflict with the police and the police have a grudge against them though there is no fault on their part. (o) Custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary for any purpose whatsoever. (p) Entire information pertains to record of the Corporation, and is available for the investigation without any impediment. Therefore, arrest is totally unwarranted. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has read over the F.I.R. and urged that:- (a) Subject matter work being based on a policy decision of the Government, does not absolve the Mayor and Corporators of their statutory duty of discharge of trust and duties under law. (b) The protection and safeguard of interest of Corporation is not seen by the accused / applicants and their deliberate dereliction has resulted in positive acts of breach of trust. (c) The accused were fully aware, that work of dwelling being of very large magnitude, cannot be completed within nine months. Despite this the accused persons have altered the condition as regards duration of work and prescribed that it to be completed within nine months. (c) The accused were fully aware, that work of dwelling being of very large magnitude, cannot be completed within nine months. Despite this the accused persons have altered the condition as regards duration of work and prescribed that it to be completed within nine months. (d) This alteration and fixing period of completion to nine months was aimed at eliminating fair competition and confining the entry of bidders in the competition aiming to chosen few, and having a preconceived design of gain. (e) Duration was reduced to nine months knowing fully well that many sites amongst proposed locations may not be actually available for handing over to contractors. (f) Initially by altering the condition as to time limit number of offerers were excluded from the competition. (g) After number of persons/contractors in the field were minimised to those chosen few, the terms and conditions as regards specification and site of works were changed at the dictate of contractor. (h) After change in specification of work retendering procedure was not resorted, which ought to have been ordinary procedure and need of fairness. The accused have allotted the work to those chosen contractors, adverse and hostile to the interest of the Corporation. (i) The actions taken by the accused persons are actuated at design of personal gain by benefitting the contractors. (j) The disbursement of advances repeatedly made indicate nothing except lack of good faith, mala fides and breach of trust by parting with the fund/property belonging to the Corporation in express violation of mandate of law. (k) The acts and omissions of accused are all aimed at and result in criminal breach of trust and other offences. 6. The learned Advocates assisting the prosecution have urged and tried to show from record that:- (i) The acts of granting of advances is done contrary to the written opinion and advice given by Engineer and Commissioner. (ii) Payment of advances has been done in absence of actual measurement of work done or material collected at site if any. (iii) Payment of such advances has resulted in causing unjust and unlawful parting of Corporation’s funds of which the accused are in trust. (iv) These payments which run in crores were not due nor agreed, and therefore have jeopardised the interest of Corporation. (iii) Payment of such advances has resulted in causing unjust and unlawful parting of Corporation’s funds of which the accused are in trust. (iv) These payments which run in crores were not due nor agreed, and therefore have jeopardised the interest of Corporation. (v) Inquiry committee and Commission has inquired into the matter prior as well parallel to the investigation of offence, and have found that the applicants are guilty. (vi) The findings of enquiries though not binding at this stage would assist in arriving at prima facie view as to whether there is case against the applicants. (vii) Various inquiry committees have also found fault with the manner of discharge of trust, and these opinions though do not constitute admissible evidence, material relied by those, in the process of holding enquiry which is the municipal record indicates at the intention as regards breach of trust. 7. In order to test the submissions, this Court has scrutinized the F.I.R. and papers placed on record along with the petition and Criminal Applications by those who have come forward to assist the prosecution. 8. F.I.R. is based on a written complaint lodged by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation Jalgaon. It is a complaint drawn at length running in about six to seven pages. Perusal of the F.I.R. reveals background and allegations as regards the commission of offence. 9. Reference to the one man committee report, is to one enquiry which was conducted prior in time to the registration of the F.I.R. The opinion expressed in the said report or other documents are not considered by this Court as expression or adjudication as regards the conduct of the accused. Contents of said report do refer to contains record and the quotations from the contents of the official documents of the Corporation. These contents serve the cause of reference to these documents such as minutes, office notes, letters etc. Correctness of these references is not disputed by the applicants. 10. It is a common ground that a scheme for housing for slum dwellers is sponsored by the State Government. It is aimed at cleansing the slums by providing houses to slum dwellings, as a part of urban development. 11. The Municipal Corporation Jalgaon took up this scheme. Under the said scheme, five slums notified under the Act of 1971 were to be developed by providing housing to the slum dwellers at different locations. It is aimed at cleansing the slums by providing houses to slum dwellings, as a part of urban development. 11. The Municipal Corporation Jalgaon took up this scheme. Under the said scheme, five slums notified under the Act of 1971 were to be developed by providing housing to the slum dwellers at different locations. Certain sites owned by the Government and certain sites which were declared slum were to be used for construction of these dwellings. 12. The scheme was supported and sanctioned by the Government. Funds were lent by HUDCO and said loan is counter guaranteed by the State Government. The implementing authority was the Municipal Corporation Jalgaon. 13. The process of decision making was by way of involvement of the general body i. e. the Corporation consisting of around 60 corporators. They were to be guided / advised by the Municipal Engineer, the Commissioner and the consultants in the matters of modalities, technical matters, procedure etc. 14. The accusation made in the F.I.R., on the basis of which, the crime has been lodged can be summarized as below:- (i) Services of Architects were engaged without any recourse to competitive procedure. (ii) Huge amount i. e. 3% of cost of work was promised and paid etc, to the Architects resulting into loss to the municipal funds. (iii) The tender process for work of housing was carried out in violation of written opinion and advice. (iv) The process of tendering was dominated by Mayor and few corporators. (v) The implementation procedure was also dominated by Mayor (respondent No. 2) and corporators. All corporators have approved and ratified actions taken by the Mayor and leading corporators. (vi) The work was of large magnitude its completion within nine months could not have been estimated, yet the period of completion was deliberately fixed by the accused to nine months. (vii) The accused persons had interfered in the tendering process, and notified the tender with nine months as period of completion knowing fully well that completion within nine months is impossible. (viii) Even evacuation of slum dwellers from some of the sites required to be vacated for commencing the work, was not possible within nine months. (ix) Large number of genuine contractors where thereby excluded from the offering as it was impossible to complete the work within nine months. Thus, fair competition was excluded. (viii) Even evacuation of slum dwellers from some of the sites required to be vacated for commencing the work, was not possible within nine months. (ix) Large number of genuine contractors where thereby excluded from the offering as it was impossible to complete the work within nine months. Thus, fair competition was excluded. (x) Admittedly, only two tenders came forwards; one has submitted nine tenders for nine works and one has submitted the tender for only two works. (xi) The cost of work was shown to have been negotiated with offers. The reduction on negotiation was too meager. (xii) The terms and description of work and even location was varied at the dictate of contractor. (xiii) After change in design any fresh tendering was not done and work was given to same contractor. (xiv) This type of procedure has resulted into causing loss to the Corporation fund on account of the act of excluding arrival of competitive bids by virtue of imposition of nine months duration. (xv) Advances were given without recording measurement of work actually or verification of material actually brought on site by the contractors. (xvi) These advances were given in utter contravention of written advice rendered by the Engineer or by the Commissioner. (xvii) In these processes, the accused have acted in such manner that by their expressed actions they have committed breach of their solemn duty and function of protecting and safeguarding corporation’s fund. (xvii) The violation of dictate of law as regards mode and manner of protection of municipal fund, the accused have committed criminal breach of trust, apart from other offences. 15. Now this Court has to examine and ascertain, whether any offence is described, and its gravity, from the description of fact which are apparent. 16. On facts, as emerging from F.I.R. and on what prima facie appears in present case can be summarised as follows:- (a) The fixing of nine months time limit on its fact is prima facie aimed at procuring gain to chosen few contractors by eliminating fair competition. An intention to eliminate fair competition is vivid and obvious. (b) In the present case, it is seen that proposing the conditions as to nine months which is on the face of it impracticable, is liable to be viewed at this stage as potentially aimed at benefit the contractors and cause loss to corporation. An intention to eliminate fair competition is vivid and obvious. (b) In the present case, it is seen that proposing the conditions as to nine months which is on the face of it impracticable, is liable to be viewed at this stage as potentially aimed at benefit the contractors and cause loss to corporation. (c) The payment of advances contrary to the written opinion / advice of the officers shows disposal funds of corporation i. e. the property in violation of the direction of law and the mode in which the trust due to occupation of office was to be discharged. (d) All these actions of accused cannot be presumed to be bona fide and based on good faith. (e) Lack of diligence and deliberate derelictions/defiance of written advise and opinion create grave shadow due to lack of good faith, and indicates criminal intention of breach of trust. 17. The aspect of breach of trust will have to be seen upon having bare look on the definition of criminal breach of trust. Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, is quoted below for ready reference:- “405. Criminal breach of trust .- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. (Underlining is added for emphasis) 18. A bare look at Section 405 of the I.P.C., quoted above, reveals that criminal breach of trust is normally read and viewed from the point of view of “misappropriation of property entrusted” which is due to incomplete reading of Section 405 of I.P.C.. 19. Breach of trust also comprises of “dishonest disposition of property in disregard to the direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged”. 20. Dishonest disposition of property in violation of direction of law which prescribes the mode in which trust is to be discharged by any law, contract by express or implied condition is an indelible description of breach of trust has to be kept in mind. 21. 20. Dishonest disposition of property in violation of direction of law which prescribes the mode in which trust is to be discharged by any law, contract by express or implied condition is an indelible description of breach of trust has to be kept in mind. 21. In this situation, the only inference which emerges is adverse to the applicants, and there is strong prima facie case of commission of offences by the applicants. The offences are serious and grave being committed in public life, and take the shape of violation of public law.” 22. In the premises discussed hereinbefore, the concession of anticipatory bail is not in the nature of licence to avoid arrest. If the police feel that arrest is necessary, it may be effected. If the arrest is effected, the bail is a rule, and applicants would be entitled for it, depending on the facts and as would convince the Court considering the merit of application for bail. 23. The submission that as the custodial interrogation may not be necessary and the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail, by itself does not impel grant of pre-arrest bail, to avoid a possible arrest, when such arrest if done may be legal and permissible. 24. The averment of applicants that there are political mala fides, does not create a licence or right in favour of the applicants that an order of anticipatory bail should essentially follow as a matter of course or a right. 25. Applicants have to rise to a hight to have the concession of pre-arrest bail by demonstrating that in all probabilities their arrest could not be supported by law. Applicants have failed to demonstrate that the F.I.R. is on its face false, mala fide and vindicative and per se illegal, and/or based on trivial matter. 26. It is prima facie evident that commission of offence is reasonably described. It is also seen that the description of accusations does not seem to be by way of bare abuses. The accusations are based on documentary evidence. These pieces of evidence cannot be branded at this stage as fictitious or craft work, and accusations cannot be branded as false or vexatious. The accusations are grave and serious, and relate to public life. 27. Therefore, the present application does not have merit to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail. 28. The accusations are based on documentary evidence. These pieces of evidence cannot be branded at this stage as fictitious or craft work, and accusations cannot be branded as false or vexatious. The accusations are grave and serious, and relate to public life. 27. Therefore, the present application does not have merit to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail. 28. Every application has to be decided on its own merits without being affected by the status of a person. These applicants being corporators or former mayor or that they have an allegation of political malice does not weigh more than the merit of the case. The F.I.R. being politically motivated etc. are the argument which may be available to the the accused in the process as defence, but it is not an all time preventive devil against the course of law as regards arrest. 29. In the result, application is rejected. Rule is discharged.