1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1012 of 2009, Criminal Application No.1018 of 2009, Criminal Application No.1024 of 2009, Criminal Application No.1026 of 2009, Criminal Application No.1028 of 2009, Criminal Application No.1030 of 2009, Criminal Application No.1050 of 2009, Criminal Application No.1052 of 2009, Criminal Application No.1054 of 2009, Criminal Application No.1056 of 2009, Criminal Application No.1058 of 2009, Criminal Application No.1060 of 2009, And Criminal Application No.1062 of 2009 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri Shyam Dewani, Advocate for Applicants. S/Shri D.B. Patel and P.D. Kothari, APPs for Non-Applicant. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 31st March, 2009 These applications by the Sectional Engineer and Deputy Engineer in Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, for anticipatory bail can be disposed of by common order. The applicants were entrusted with the execution of various works in Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojna. It was found that the applicant had misappropriated amounts from various sanctioned amounts by showing wrong measurements, not engaging labourers, who were supposed to have engaged, 2 and not paying the labourers, who were engaged. The applicants were placed under suspension and a report was made to the police. The applicants applied for anticipatory before the Sessions Court at Nagpur, which granted him by order dated 20-12-2009. The said application was ultimately rejected on 2-3-2009. In the meantime, the applicant had attended the Police Station in terms of that order. The learned counsel for the applicants states that the applicants are alleged to have defalcated the amounts along with the other accused. He states that the applicants would deposit within three weeks 25% of the amount allegedly defalcated without prejudice to their rights, to show their bona fides, and would furnish security in respect of another 25% of the amount within three weeks before the Trial Court. He submits that since other accused are also involved, the liability, if any, in respect of the remaining amount may be of the other accused persons. The learned APP strongly opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants contending that it is not only recovery of money for which custodial interrogation of the applicants is required, but also to probe the other ramification of the scam. This can be achieved by interrogation to which applicants will submit themselves. Their being in custody may not be necessary. In view of this, in the event of arrest of the 3 applicants, each of the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a PR bond of Rs.50,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount. The learned Trial Magistrate before whom the amounts are deposited shall invest the amount in interest earning deposit in the local State Bank of India and shall treat such deposits as property in the case to be dealt with at the end of the trial. The applicant shall appear before the Police Station Officer concerned on 6-4-2009 at 10 a.m. and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Officer. This order shall stand revoked if the deposit is not made and the security is not furnished by 21.4.2009. The applications are disposed of. Judge. Pdl.