1 Cri. Appln.No.3556/2011 fmp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3556 OF 2011 Shri Satish Govind Dharane ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.P. Brahme, Advocate holding for Shri Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicant Shri N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for the respondents ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 11th October, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused application and the record. 2. Crime under Sections 166, 167, 171, 403, 406, 408, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 420, 500 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has been registered at C.R. No.74/2011, against the present applicant and 7 other persons – some amongst them sitting or ex-Municipal Councillors of Shahada Municipal Council and some employees of the Shahada Municipal Council, with Shahada Police Station, Taluka Shahada, District 2 Cri. Appln.No.3556/2011 fmp Nandurbar on 9.5.2011. Briefly, it is the case of the prosecution, that, vermicultural project was entrusted to the present applicant in response to the acceptance of the tender for the work in or about June 2005; and it was revealed in the audit report dated 8.7.2009 that public money has been fraudulently squandered and siphoned off in blatant violation of the agreement executed between the Municipal Council and the applicant/ accused and to achieve this, the resolutions of the standing committee and Special General Body meetings of the Municipal Council were forged. According to the prosecution, amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs was illegally given to the applicant/ accused as an advance by means of collusion with the accused Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7. 3. This is the second round of the application for anticipatory bail inasmuch as the applicant/ accused had moved Criminal Bail Application No.100/2011 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada and the same was rejected vide order dated 9.8.2011. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, after hearing the parties, and upon considering the material placed before him, particularly the report of the Special Auditor noticed the active involvement of the accused in the present crime and proceeded to reject the application mainly on the ground that custodial interrogation is necessary to carry out thorough 3 Cri. Appln.No.3556/2011 fmp investigation in the scam in order to identify its beneficiaries and crystalise the role of every accused therein. 4. Mr. Brahme, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the acts of the parties have been documented and there is a record to reveal as to how the things concerning vermicultural project undertaken by the applicant/ accused had taken shape and how the monies were spent. He further submitted that the applicant/ accused has tendered before the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik expenditure bills explaining how the amounts which were withdrawn from the Bank under bearer cheque were disbursed. In these circumstances, he submitted, custodial interrogation of the applicant/ accused is not necessary. 5. Learned A.P.P., with reference to the affidavit-in-reply dated 7.9.2011, submitted that the applicant/ accused is the principal beneficiary of the economic offence of fraudulent squandering of public money committed by the accused in collusion with each other and there is prima facie material showing the involvement of the applicant/ accused in the crime. On this background, he submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant/ accused is necessary for complete and better understanding of the role of every accused in the crime. It is not in 4 Cri. Appln.No.3556/2011 fmp dispute that the work of vermicultural project of the Shahada Municipal Council was undertaken by the applicant/ accused, proprietor of M/s Ajinkya Biofert, Pune under an agreement dated 14.10.2005 and till this date gross payment of Rs.67,04,023/- inclusive of taxes has been made to the applicant/ accused by the Municipal Council. It is also not in dispute that an advance of Rs. 30 Lakhs was paid to the applicant/ accused and an amount of Rs. 15,05,000/- was withdrawn by the applicant/ accused from his Account under bearer cheques. 6. Special Auditor’s report dated 8.7.2009 has recorded its findings as under : (i) The Municipal Council did not act as per the Government Resolutions and orders of Maharashtra Municipal Councils Audit Code, 1971. The office bearers and employees of the Municipal Council had misused their powers resulting in serious economic irregularities, thereby causing financial loss to the Municipal Council/ State. (ii) An advance of Rs.30 Lakhs was given to the applicant/ accused without obtaining any security and in contravention of the agreement dated 14.10.2005. 5 Cri. Appln.No.3556/2011 fmp (iii) Forged resolutions of the Standing Committee and Special General Body meeting of the Council were tendered before the District Magistrate and the Collector, Nandurbar for sanction of the first and second bill of the applicant/ accused, totaling to Rs. 36,13,290/-. Copies of the resolution are annexed to the Special Audit Report at Shedule IV to the bill, the fact of the forgery done in respect of the resolution of the Standing Committee and Special General Body meeting. 7. Prima facie, the involvement of the applicant/ accused as the beneficiary of the crime surfaces from the record. However, much remains to be seen what is beneath the surface, particularly the ramifications of the economic offence of fraudulent squandering of public funds. The record tendered before the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik, as contended by the applicant/ accused, may project the flow of the money, but such projection is only of the choice of the applicant/ accused and the truth behind it can only be evident if the investigation machinery is given an opportunity of custodial interrogation. Hence, the application is rejected. 6 Cri. Appln.No.3556/2011 fmp 8. Prayer is made for extension of interim protection. Considering the facts and circumstances in the present case, the prayer is rejected. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/cri3556.11