Officials of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) had raided 22 mini-steel plants and 25 re-rolling mills on September 6 and 7, when they detected that the units had been stealing power from the MSEB by a simple method which deployed extremely sophisticated equipment. Only one of the accused has been arrested while 19 others are absconding.

In an unusually long judgement for an anticipatory bail plea, Judge Thombre in his 31-page order said the fact that all the accused have been absconding since the First Information Report (FIR) was filed, gives rise to the possibility that they may not be available even during the trial.

He said all the Supreme Court's observations in the Ashok Jain vs Director of Enforcement case are applicable to the present case in toto, ie, ``the demand ofan individual's liberty has to be matched with the larger interest of public and state. The investigator had to be given the full freedom for investigations,'' he pointed out.

Justifying his elaborate order, he said when the arguments during the hearing ran into a marathon session, it is incumbent on him to pass a ``well-reasoned judicial order''.

Quoting various Supreme Court and high court judgements, the additional sessions judge said, ``Investigation is a tardy and tedious process. It is by the action of the investigating officer that law becomes a positive force. He should be given free liberty to collect the necessary evidence in any manner he feels expedient.'' The judge said the nature of material placed before him was positive and it justified further investigations by the police.

He also dismissed the arguments of the defence counsels that the ``reasonable and correctness of the complaint'' should be examined before rejecting the bail plea. The judge said this is not the time to go into the``reliability and grievances'' of the complaint.

Disagreeing with the defence that the FIR is not exhaustive, the judge said: ``The First Information Report' is not an encyclopedia of events. The fact that minute details of the case are not incorporated into it are not sufficient grounds to grant bail,'' he said.

The judge also disagreed with one of the defence counsels who argued that the case should be referred to the electrical inspector and not the courts or police as it involved ``detective meter reading''. ``The accused had in fact tampered with the meters and so the remedy of deciding the case at the level of electrical inspector does not lie with `them' the judge pointed out.

District government pleader Sunil Kingaonkar represented the state while Satish Taurawala, S B Kulkarni, Vinay Kakade, B P Agrawal and K D Deshpande, appeared on behalf of the accused.