ORDER : 1. The applicants are seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 345/2019 registered with Majalgaon City Police Station, Dist. Beed by taking aid of Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 2. The facts of the prosecution case in narrow compass are as under :- (a) Mr. Krushna Shriram Jogdand, working as Civil Engineer on the establishment of Municipal Council, Majalgaon lodged complaint on 24.12.2019 with Majalgaon City Police Station on the basis of authority letter given by Mr. Vivek Johnson, Chief Officer, dated 23.12.2019. It was in respect of misappropriation of government funds under various schemes introduced by the Government in the 14th Finance Commission allocated to the Municipal Council, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. It is stated in the complaint that as per the directions of the State Government vide letter No.TFC 8105/Pra Kra. 106 Navi 4 dated 03.08.2015, the Municipal Council was required to disburse 50% of the total amount received from the 14th Finance Commission on the amenities such as waste Management, sanitary blocks, toilets and urban tree plantation. The remaining 50% of the funds was required to be utilized for various works under the scheme of ‘Swach Bharat Abhiyan’. The budget was to be utilized only for the essential works under the scheme of ‘Swach Bharat Abhiyan’. After completion, NOC was to be obtained from the Government. It is alleged that budget allotted to the Municipal Council for utilization under the scheme of ‘Swach Bharat Abhiyan’ was not utilized as per the mandatory directions issued by the State Government. It is alleged that budget was utilized for the works not permitted or not mentioned under the scheme of ‘Swach Bharat Abhiyan’. The Chief Officers (accused Nos. 1 to 3) during the tenure for the years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 being the Head of Administration ought to have obtained prior permission from the Collector/State Government for utilization of funds for other works or under other scheme. The respondents/respective Accountants (Accused Nos. 4 to 7) are equally responsible for the misutilization of funds. List/charts were annexed with the complaint, giving all the details of the work and misutilization of funds. (b) According to the prosecution case, the applicants/accused with the aid of co-accused alleged to have misappropriated government funds to the tune of Rs.4,13,97,942/-. The Government has appointed one Enquiry Committee. 4 to 7) are equally responsible for the misutilization of funds. List/charts were annexed with the complaint, giving all the details of the work and misutilization of funds. (b) According to the prosecution case, the applicants/accused with the aid of co-accused alleged to have misappropriated government funds to the tune of Rs.4,13,97,942/-. The Government has appointed one Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee has given its report and on that basis, it was directed by the Directorate of Municipal Administration to take appropriate action. (c) Upon receiving the complaint in writing from the authorized person Mr. Krushna Jogdand, Civil Engineer, Crime No.345/2019 came to be registered against the applicants and other co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. (d) The applicants came to be arrested in the above said crime and were interrogated in the Police custody. The documentary evidence was collected during the course of investigation. In all, involvement of 8 accused persons was revealed during the course of investigation and accordingly, all of them came to be arrested including the present applicants. Accused No. 4 (as per charge-sheet) Suryakant Dnyanoba Suryawanshi is reported dead after filing of charge-sheet. (e) The investigation is completed. The applicants had applied for bail after filing of the charge sheet, but their applications for bail came to be turned down by the respective courts below. (f) The following are the details of applicants/accused :- S. No. Bail Application No. Name of the accused Date of arrest Date of M.C.R. 1. 1502/2020 Sahal Amer Chaus 02.07.2020 08.07.2020 2. 1535/2020 Kailas Vasantrao Ranjwan 16.08.2020 21.08.2021 3. 954/2021 Anand Limbaji Hazare 26.02.2021 05.03.2021 (g) The Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against all the accused before the concerned J.M.F.C. Court in Crime No. 345/2019 registered with Majalgaon City Police Station, Majalgaon. All the applicants/accused are seeking bail after filing of the charge sheet. (h) Following accused persons are stated to be released on bail. S. No. Accused No. Name of the accused Remarks 1. Accused No. 1 Laxman Motiram Rathod (Chief Officer) Released on bail by the JMFC 2. Accused No. 2 Harikalyan Janardhan Yelgatte (Chief Officer) Released on bail by the JMFC 3. Accused No. 3 Ashok Bhimrao Kulkarni (Accountant) Released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Submissions of Mr. S. No. Accused No. Name of the accused Remarks 1. Accused No. 1 Laxman Motiram Rathod (Chief Officer) Released on bail by the JMFC 2. Accused No. 2 Harikalyan Janardhan Yelgatte (Chief Officer) Released on bail by the JMFC 3. Accused No. 3 Ashok Bhimrao Kulkarni (Accountant) Released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Submissions of Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus in Bail Application No. 1502/2020. (i) Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel vehemently submitted that the investigation of Crime No. 345/2019 registered with Majalgaon City Police Station has been completed and charge sheet is filed. The name of applicant does not find place in the F.I.R. The applicant/ Sahal Amer Chaus was elected President of Majalgaon Municipal Council. The Police have registered another crime against the applicant vide C.R. No. 329/2019. He submitted that the genesis of both the crimes is the same and one if the allegations levelled in both the FIRs are taken into account as well as material collected while conducting the investigation. The applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus had applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, but his prayer came to be turned down. The applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus has filed bail application No.569/2020 before this Court and this Court was pleased to reject the bail application under order dated 21st December, 2020. However, the temporary bail granted to the applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus came to be continued on his health ground. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to continue the same interim bail in Special Leave Appeal (Criminal) No. 93/2021 vide order dated 07.01.2021. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 569/2020 and enlarged this applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus on bail in connection with Crime No. 329/2019. (j) Mr. Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to the copy of FIR in Crime No. 329/2019 and copy of FIR in connection with Crime No. 345/2019 registered with Majalgaon City Police Station. He pointed out that the genesis of both crimes is the same and one. In fact, there was no need to register another crime No. 345/2019 against the applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus. Practically, the same allegations and same set of facts are involved in both the crimes referred above against the applicant. The applicant is entitled to get bail on the ground of parity. (k) Mr. In fact, there was no need to register another crime No. 345/2019 against the applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus. Practically, the same allegations and same set of facts are involved in both the crimes referred above against the applicant. The applicant is entitled to get bail on the ground of parity. (k) Mr. Deshmukh, learned senior counsel submitted that at present, the applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus is on bail on medical ground. The role alleged against the applicant is very much limited and that too of a short tenure. The applicant being a President of the Municipal Council, Majalgaon alleged to have approved the bills in collusion with Chief Officers and Accountants. The documentary evidence is already collected and there is no need to keep the applicant behind the bars when the charge sheet is already filed long back. The trial may take its own time. Submissions of Mr. Sundarshan Salunke, learned counsel for applicant/Kailas Vasantrao Ranjwan in Bail Application No. 1535/2020. (l) Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the applicant/Kailas Ranjwan argued that as per the allegations levelled in the FIR, at the relevant point of time, the applicant was working as Accountant on the establishment of Municipal council, Majalgaon. The payment alleged to have been made by the applicant by violating the prescribed procedure. There was no verification of work and payments were made. He submitted that audit of Municipal Council, Majalgaon for the year 2016-2017 was carried out by the certified Government Auditor. The audit report does not disclose any wrongful gain by the present applicant/Kailas Ranjwan. (m) Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the applicant/Kailas submitted that there are in all 8 accused persons involved in this case. Out of them, Chief Officer, Laxman Rathod and Chief Officer, Harikalyan Yelgatte are released on bail in this crime as well as in another crime No.329/2019. Another Accountant Ashok Kulkarni involved in Crime No.329/2019 and CR No.345/2019 is released on bail. The applicant being Accountant at the relevant point of time stand on the same footing. The applicant is entitled to get bail on the ground of parity. (n) He submitted that according to the provisions of The Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and. Industrial Townships Act, 1965. the Chief Officer is head of the Municipal Council Administration. Both the Chief Officers are on bail, who alleged to have played a major role in the alleged offences. (n) He submitted that according to the provisions of The Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and. Industrial Townships Act, 1965. the Chief Officer is head of the Municipal Council Administration. Both the Chief Officers are on bail, who alleged to have played a major role in the alleged offences. The present applicant being Accountant at the lower rank in the administration is kept behind the bars. He submitted that the Government has appointed Enquiry Committee and Enquiry committee has filed its report. If the applicant has committed any irregularity or the dereliction of duty, the Government will take necessary departmental action. There is no propriety to keep him behind the bars when the investigation is complete. He submitted that the charge is not yet framed and the trial may take its own time. Submission of Mr. S.B. Deshpande, learned counsel for applicant Anand S/o. Limbaji Hajare in Criminal Bail Application No. 954/2021. (o) Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant-Anand submitted that applicant was serving as Accountant with Majalgaon Municipal Council for the period from 02.06.2017 to 30.06.2018. The allegations are that during above said period, 18 cheques were issued for works done beyond scope of the scheme. Mr. Deshpande submitted that out of those 18 cheques, only 6 cheques were issued during the tenure of this applicant. He is not concerned in respect of other cheques which were issued after his tenure. He submitted that Chief Officers of the Municipal Council, Majalgaon namely, Laxman Rathod and Harikalyan Yelgatte have been released on bail in this crime as well as in connected crime No. 329/2019. Another Accountant Mr. Ashok Kulkarni, whose tenure was prior to the applicant also released on bail in both the crimes. As such, seniors of applicant are released on bail as well as another Accountant is also released on bail. The applicant is entitled to get bail on the ground of parity. (p) Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel submitted that duties of the Accountant are given. The entire allegations are of diverting funds to some other works. It is not a case of grabbing of funds, but it is a case of misappropriation of funds. The State Government has appointed Five Members Committee and the Committee has submitted its report. The State may initiate departmental proceedings against the applicant. There is no need to keep the applicant behind bars when the charge sheet is filed. It is not a case of grabbing of funds, but it is a case of misappropriation of funds. The State Government has appointed Five Members Committee and the Committee has submitted its report. The State may initiate departmental proceedings against the applicant. There is no need to keep the applicant behind bars when the charge sheet is filed. Submissions of Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, A.P.P. for the State (q) Mr. Sonpawale, learned A.P.P. strongly opposed to allow this bunch of application arising out of same crime. He submitted that two different crimes have been registered against the applicants at Majalgaon City Police Station viz Crime No. 329/2019 and Crime No. 345/2019. He submitted that the genesis of above said crimes is different. In this context, Mr. Sonpawale, learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the affidavit sworn in by the Investigating Officer and explained that these are the two different and distinct offences registered against the applicants. He submitted that the applicants are not entitled to get bail on the ground of parity in view of the distinct and different crime. He submitted that the applicants are involved in a case of misappropriation of government funds to the tune of more than rupees four crores. The President, Chief Officers and Accountants of the Municipal Council, Majalgaon in a systematic way, alleged to have misappropriated the government funds. The Investigating Officer has collected sufficient documentary evidence against them. There is prima facie case against the applicants showing their complicity in the commission of respective offences. (r) Mr. Sonpawale submitted that the trial can be expedited by the concerned court when the charge sheet is filed. He submitted that the offences alleged against the applicants are serious. It is a case of misappropriation of government funds and preparation of false record. He also invited my attention to the relevant pages of the charge sheet in order to show the role of respective applicants in commission of alleged offences. He submitted that it is not a suitable case to release the applicants on bail even though investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. (s) Mr. Sonpawale, learned A.P.P. submitted that the President, Chief Officers and Accountants of the Municipal Council, Majalgaon have violated the financial rules. There was no E-Tendering process for the works costing more than Rs.3,00,000/-. No procedure is followed while approving the bills and payments to the concerned parties. (s) Mr. Sonpawale, learned A.P.P. submitted that the President, Chief Officers and Accountants of the Municipal Council, Majalgaon have violated the financial rules. There was no E-Tendering process for the works costing more than Rs.3,00,000/-. No procedure is followed while approving the bills and payments to the concerned parties. There was no approval and sanction of Standing Committee and General Body. The applicants in collusion alleged to have misappropriated the government funds of Rs. 4,13,97,942/-. (t) Having regard to the huge amount of misappropriation of government funds and prima facie involvement of the concerned applicants, they are not entitled to get bail. 3. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned senior counsel, Mr. Sanjay Deshpande and Mr. Sudarshan Salunke, learned counsel appearing for the respective applicants and Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, learned A.P.P. for the State. I have also gone through the copies of the charge sheet filed along with respective bail applications as well as the copies of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 93/2021 dated 07.01.2021 and Criminal Appeal No. 119/2021 dated 9th February, 2021 and copies of orders of rejection of bail passed by this court in Bail Application No. 569/2020 and Bail Application No. 954/2021 and copies of orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge thereby rejecting the bail applications of the respective applicants. 4. On perusing the copy of order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 119/2021 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 93/2021 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 9th February, 2021. It is evident that applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus has been released on bail on the terms and conditions in connection with Crime No. 329/2019 registered with Majalgaon City Police Station. The question is about release of applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus in Bail Application No. 1502/2020 in connection with crime No. 345/2019 by applying the rule of parity. 5. I have gone through the comparative chart of FIR in connection with Crime No. 329/2019 and Crime No. 345/2019 registered with Majalgaon City Police Station in order to find out whether the genesis of the prosecution case is same and one. Also perused the reply affidavit of the Investigating Officer in that context. 6. 5. I have gone through the comparative chart of FIR in connection with Crime No. 329/2019 and Crime No. 345/2019 registered with Majalgaon City Police Station in order to find out whether the genesis of the prosecution case is same and one. Also perused the reply affidavit of the Investigating Officer in that context. 6. On going through the same, it is evident that the same first informant Krushna Jogdand/authorized officer has lodged both FIRs on the basis of authority letter given by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Majalgaon. Practically, same offences came to be registered except section 120-B of I.P.C. which finds in Crime No. 329/2019. In both FIRs, it is alleged that E-Tendering process in the works above Rs. 3,00,000/- is not done and it is serious financial irregularity. The procedure prescribed by the Government for utilization of government funds is not followed. Both FIRs are against same applicants except the applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus. In both FIRs No. 329/2019 and 345/2019, the applicant Sahal Amer Chaus is not named as an accused. While filing the charge sheet, the name of applicant is arrayed as one of the accused. 7. The enquiry report dated 18.06.2019 of Five Members Committee constituted by the Directorate of Municipal Administration is relied upon. The same audit reports for the respective years is also relied in both the cases. 8. Having regard to the factual scenario as appearing from the FIRs of crime Nos. 345/2019 and 329/2019, it is noticed that practically, same and identical allegations are made therein. The genesis of the prosecution case is practically same. There is no material difference as such as noticed above. The applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus is released on bail in connection with Crime No. 329/2019 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 119/2021 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 93/2021 under order dated 09.02.2021. When the applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus is released by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with Crime No. 329/2019, he is entitled to get bail in present crime No. 345/2019 on the ground of parity in the background of same set of allegations and offences registered against him. The applicant is presently on temporary bail on medical ground. It is not a case that applicant has committed any breach of the terms and conditions imposed by the Court while releasing on bail in connected Crime No. 329/2019. 9. The applicant is presently on temporary bail on medical ground. It is not a case that applicant has committed any breach of the terms and conditions imposed by the Court while releasing on bail in connected Crime No. 329/2019. 9. The investigation of Crime No. 345/2019 has been completed and Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet in the concerned Court. There are in all 8 accused persons involved in the case. It is informed that charge is not yet framed in the case. Even though, it is a case of misappropriation of government funds by preparing false record, I do not find any extraordinary circumstances to reject the bail application when rule of parity is applicable in the case. The name of the applicant/Sahal Amer Chaus does not find place in the FIR and his role alleged to have been revealed during the course of investigation in the capacity as a President of Majalgaon Municipal Council. The Chief Officer of the Municipal Council is head of the administration and responsible for the day to day affairs as well as financial transactions and utilization of government funds as per the schemes. Even though the applicant alleged to have approved certain bills, it is for the Chief Officer concerned to verify the factual aspect and then issue the cheques as pointed out earlier. The chief Officers named in the FIR Mr. Laxman Rathod and Mr. Harikalyan Yelgatte are the Head of the administration and responsible for the monetary transactions and utilization of government funds. The case of this applicant as President is on better footing than the Chief Officer, who has been released on bail. The charge sheet runs into more than thousand pages. The stock of documentary evidence has been collected by the Investing Officer and produced along with the charge sheet. The case is mainly rest upon documentary evidence. There is no propriety to keep this applicant behind the bars. The apprehension put forth by the prosecution agency about securing presence and tampering of witnesses can be taken care of by imposing conditions. By looking to the number of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet and considering the stock of evidence, the trial may take considerable time. 10. Having regard to the above reasons and discussion, I am of the view that there is no point in keeping the applicant behind the bars. 11. By looking to the number of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet and considering the stock of evidence, the trial may take considerable time. 10. Having regard to the above reasons and discussion, I am of the view that there is no point in keeping the applicant behind the bars. 11. In detailed examination of the evidence produced by the prosecution machinery along with the charge sheet needs to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no prejudging and no prejudice, a brief examination to be satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary. 12. What are the factors to be kept in mind while considering the bail application relating to heinous offences have been indicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chaterjee & another, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496 , wherein by relying on its earlier decisions in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 and in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh reported in (2002) 3 SCC 598 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has indicated the following factors to be borne in mind while considering the bail application:- (i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 13. In case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Vinod Goenka reported in AIR 2012 SC 830 , it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions under section 437, 439 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India that object of the bail is to secure the appearance of the accused persons at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called out. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called out. It is further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. It is also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while considering the bail applications, the Court has to consider following factors and circumstances :- (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 14. In case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under :- Humane attitude is required to be adopted by Judge while dealing with the application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. Criminal antecedents of the accused need to be seen coupled with other factors for grant of bail. There is no doubt that grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large umber of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessarily to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the fact and in the circumstances of a case. 15. Having regard to the factors to be borne in mind while considering the bail application in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court if the facts of the case in hand and nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment are taken into consideration, the applicant needs to be enlarged on bail. No antecedents are brought to the notice of this Court. 16. Now, coming to another applicant, Kailas Ranjwan (Bail Application No. 1535/2020). He was working as an Accountant on the establishment of Majalgaon Municipal Council during period of occurrence of offences. As pointed out earlier, he came to be arrested on 16.08.2020 and remanded to Police custody. No antecedents are brought to the notice of this Court. 16. Now, coming to another applicant, Kailas Ranjwan (Bail Application No. 1535/2020). He was working as an Accountant on the establishment of Majalgaon Municipal Council during period of occurrence of offences. As pointed out earlier, he came to be arrested on 16.08.2020 and remanded to Police custody. He was remanded to Magisterial custody on 21.08.2020 and since 21.08.2020, he is behind the bars in connection with the crime No. 345/2019 registered with Majalgaon City Police Station. He is a government servant. The investigation of the said crime has been completed and charge sheet is filed. There are remote chances of fleeing away from the trial as he being a government servant. Even otherwise, his presence can be secured by imposing certain conditions. He is not a dangerous person. He cannot be said to be threat to the society. There is remote possibility of repetition of said crime. No criminal antecedents of this applicant/Kailas are brought to the notice of this Court. There are no extraordinary circumstances to refuse his bail application. Both Chief Officers involved in this crime have been released on bail, who are head of administration and responsible for the financial transactions and utilization of government funds under various schemes. The applicant being an Accountant is a lower in rank needs same treatment. It is also pointed out that another Accountant Ashok Bhimrao Kulkarni has been released on bail in this crime by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The applicant is entitled to get bail on the ground of parity when there are no other factors in his way to release on bail. His presence can be secured. 17. Now, coming to another applicant, namely, Harikalyan Yelgatte (Bail Application No. 954/2021) who was working as an Accountant on the establishment of Municipal Council, Majalgaon at the relevant point of time. His tenure as Accountant with Majalgaon Municipal Council was from 02.06.2017 to 30.06.2018. According to the allegations levelled against him in the FIR and the charge sheet, during his period, 18 cheques were issued for works done beyond the scope of the scheme. However, on perusal of the relevant pages of the charge sheet, it is noticed that out of those 18 cheques, only 6 cheques were issued during the tenure of accused Anand Hajare. However, on perusal of the relevant pages of the charge sheet, it is noticed that out of those 18 cheques, only 6 cheques were issued during the tenure of accused Anand Hajare. He was arrested in this crime on 26.02.2021 and remanded to Police custody till 05.03.2021. Since 05.03.2021, the applicant is in Magisterial custody and behind bars. The charge sheet has been filed against him. The charge is yet to be framed. 18. As observed earlier, his superior Officer/Chief Officers have been released on bail by the JMFC Court, why bail should be refused to the accused/applicant, who is lower in rank and having less responsibility than the Chief Officer, who is stated to be the head of the Municipal administration and responsible for the financial transactions and utilization of government funds under the various schemes. In the earlier paragraphs, I am convinced to release another Accountant Kailas Ranjwan on bail and same reasons are also applicable to this applicant Mr. Anand Hajare, who is also an Accountant. He is on the same platform and needs to be enlarged on bail. The trial may take its own time having regard to the voluminous documentary evidence. 19. On careful scrutiny of the charge sheet and papers annexed thereto, and the nature of accusation levelled against the applicants and punishment provided under the respective offences, all of them need to be enlarged on bail, however, subject to the certain conditions which would take care of apprehension of tampering of witnesses and fleeing from justice put forth by the prosecution side. 20. Having regard to the above reasons and discussion, I am convinced to grant bail to all the applicants. ORDER (I) The bail applications are allowed. (A) The applicants/Sahal S/o. Amer Chaus, Kailas S/o. Vasantrao Ranjwan and Anand S/o. Limbaji Hajare shall be released on bail upon furnishing their P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one or two solvent surety of the like amount by each of them on the following conditions :- (i) The applicants shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (ii) The applicants shall not put any obstacle in the trial and remain present on the dates fixed by the trial court and co-operate to the trial court. (iii) The applicants shall deposit their passport, if any, with the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Majalgaon. (ii) The applicants shall not put any obstacle in the trial and remain present on the dates fixed by the trial court and co-operate to the trial court. (iii) The applicants shall deposit their passport, if any, with the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Majalgaon. (iv) The applicants shall not travel abroad without prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Majalgaon. (v) The applicants shall furnish their addresses in detail and mobile phone numbers with the J.M.F.C. Majalgaon and City Police Station, Majalgaon and Police Inspector, Majalgaon City Police Station to verify the same. (vi) Bail before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.