IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 651/08 Yuvraj Vishnusa Parihar vs. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J DATED : 27 th MARCH, 2008. Heard Shri J.B.Kasat, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri Fulzele, A.P.P. for respondent State. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant is arrested for the offence under Section 409, 420, 467, 468 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. in Crime No. 3/2008 of Police Station Paratwada. Learned A.P.P. has opposed this application saying that the applicant had verified the signatures of one Vijay Jagtap and Rajendra Solanki, who are in existence and there were fake accounts in the bank. It is his submission that this applicant along with the bank manager (applicant in Cri. Application No. 671/08) had siphoned large amounts to the tune of lacs and misappropriated that amount. On perusal of the order of the learned trial Judge, it appears that the learned trial Judge has distinguished the case of the applicant, with that of one Newade saying that the applicant was incharge of loan section and the work of processing the loan cases was allotted to him. Learned A.P.P. has sought to prove his liability by producing duty list on record. The offence appears to be serious, however, it does appear from the Audit Report that at the relevant time, no duty list was made available to the auditor. The applicant is senior clerk. It is difficult to say that the applicant must have been in total and full incharge of the loan section for granting loans without the approval of branch manager or any other senior officer of the bank. No doubt, his part in the crime can be suspected at this stage, but fact remains that he application is for grant of bail and not for anticipatory bail. The applicant seems to be in jail since 5.1.2008. Considering the fact that the other accused is released on bail and the case of this applicant appears to be similar to that of other accused, except regarding his duties, he would be entitled for bail. However, subject to conditions. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R.Bond of Rs. 25,000/- subject to conditions that he shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall report at Police Station Paratwada twice in a week on Tuesday & Friday between 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., till completion of the investigation. Bail in trial Court. It is made clear that the above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and shall not influence the trial Judge in any way while deciding the matter on merit. Hamdast granted. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Rvj.