1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.936 of 2010 [Giridhar son of Narayan Kurve Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.P. Joshi, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. C.N. Adgokar, APP for respondent. ---- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 25th June, 2010. 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. Applicant was working as a Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Akola, and is under suspension. 3. He apprehends arrest furtherance to Crime No. M-85/2010 registered with City Kotwali Police Station, Akola, for offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 171, 403, 420, 468 and 409 of Indian Penal Code. 4. According to applicant:- [a] He is a very honest officer 2 having acclaimed past record. [b] He under a bona fide belief invested Municipal funds of Rs. 1.3 crores in Vidarbha Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Akola. [c] In spite of maturity, the Bank could pay only Rs. 30,00,000- 00, and could not pay the balance. [d] On a complaint lodged by one contractor about whom the applicant claims to have animus, the offence has been registered towards the illegal investment of amount by applicant with a Bank of suspicious background and contrary to Standing Orders etc. 5. Heard learned Adv. Mr. R.P. Joshi for the applicant and learned APP Mr. C.N. Adgokar for the State. 6. Submission of learned Adv. Mr. R.P. Joshi for the applicant can be summarized as follows:- [1] For obtaining better returns to the Municipal Corporation due to insistence of the Mayor etc., the amount was invested with the said Co-operative Bank. [2] Rate of interest of the Co- 3 operative Bank was more than the rate paid by the Nationalized Banks. [3] It is nowhere notified that the Vidarbha Urban Co-operative Bank is not approved Co- operative Bank for investment by Municipal Corporation. [4] The refund of amount could not be received because small depositors had suddenly withdrawn the amounts. [5] The recovery of amounts from contractors who had deposits with the Bank by way of adjustment could not materialize, because the Reserve Bank of India applied restrictions, and in absence of sanction from the Reserve Bank of India, the recovery by adjustment or settlement of account could not be made. [6] Though various Sections of Indian Penal Code are applied, most are bailable and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code has no application. 7. This Court has perused the annexures to the bail application and the case diary. 8. Under Section 83 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, funds of 4 the Corporation have to be paid by the Commissioner into a Scheduled Bank or “an approved Co-operative Bank.” 9. The applicant is not in a position to show that the said local Urban Co-operative Bank is an approved Co-operative Bank within the meaning of Section 83. 10. It is seen that the “Criminal breach of trust”, as defined in Section 405 of Indian Penal Code, connotes ‘dishonest disposition of property by a person having domain on it, in violation of a direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged.’ 11. The criminal breach of trust by a Public Servant is punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code with life imprisonment. 12. Prima facie, therefore, present is a case where the conduct of the applicant squarely falls within the compass of a criminal breach of trust, apart from the Sections for which the offence is registered, and hence he is not entitled to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 13. Whether a custodial interrogation is required would not be a matter of consideration, as real question, which arises, is as to whether applicant has right of conserving his liberty, and answer is not in affirmative. 5 14. The applicant is, therefore, not entitled to the relief sought for. 15. Application is rejected. Judge |Hedau|