1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No. 277/2011 (Rohidas Kashiram Rathod V/s. The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. P.S. Patur, Tq. Patur, Distt. Akola) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A. S. Mardikar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 15.9.2011. 1. Heard Mr. A. S. Mardikar, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. 2. The applicant who apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 84/2011, registered at Police Station Patur, for offence punishable under Sections 406, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), has filed this application for pre-arrest bail. 3. The allegations in the complaint lodged by the Block Development Officer namely Gajanan Vele are that one Shri. L. D. Dhurve was working as Gramsevak and the present applicant was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Asola, Tq. Patur, Dist. Akola, and it is suspected that between 07/08/2009 to 24/09/2010, both, in furtherance of their common intention, have misappropriated the amount of Rs. 2,65,288/-. 2 4. The applicant says that he has nothing to do with the said allegation and that it was Mr. L. D. Dhurve who was looking after the affairs and the account and, the entire record was with him. He has pointed out that prior to the lodging of the report by the Block Development Officer he had sent reply to the notice issued to him, in which appropriate explanation regarding the legal expenditure of the said amount was given but no verification of the same was made and the complaint was lodged. The applicant is ready to abide by any condition which may be imposed on him by this Court. 5. In the reply, while resisting the application for anticipatory bail, the respondent has alleged that the relevant documents are to be recovered from the custody of the applicant in order to ascertain the amount of misappropriation and the manner in which the misappropriation has been done. The respondent wants that the applicant should surrender before the Investigating Agency and submit the documents. 6. It is seen from the records that after the show cause notice dated 11/05/2011, sent to the present applicant and to the said Gramsevak namely Mr. L. D. Dhurve, the applicant had promptly sent a reply to the Block Development Officer in which explanation was given as to how the said amount was spent legally. It is the grievance of the applicant that the verification of the said facts has not been done and the complaint has been lodged. 3 7. It is seen that the applicant is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Asola, which is an institution and, therefore, the documents pertaining to the Gram Panchayat would normally be found in the office of the Gram Panchayat. In any case, appropriate direction can be given to the applicant to attend the concerned Police Station and produce the relevant documents wanted by the Investigating Agency. If, he can produce them or should give the information as to where the documents are kept so that they can be recovered. In my view, for the above purpose, custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 8. It is not the case of the prosecution that the present applicant is habitual offender. 9. The applicant, therefore, deserves anticipatory bail with appropriate conditions. 10. Hence, the application is allowed. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicant in Police Station, Patur, Crime No. 84/2011, for offence punishable under Sections 406, 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC, he shall be released on bail upon his execution of personal recognition bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount under 4 following conditions namely: (i) The applicant shall attend the Police Station, Patur on 17th September 2011, between 11.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. and thereafter as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer to do so. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigating officer and shall produce before him the required documents in his possession and shall give information about other documents which are not in his possession. (iii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of this Court. 12. It is made clear that the other alleged co-accused shall not claim the ground of parity and his case would depend on its own merits. 13. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE Punde.