{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4337 OF 2009 1. Namdeo Budha Sonawane Age-50 years, Occ-Agriculture 2. Ravij Namdeo Masare Age-40 years, Occ-Agriculture Both R/o Hendrun Tq & Dist-Dhule APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent of Police Dhule, Dist-Dhule RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.R.N.Dhorde h/f Mr.M.S.Sonawane, Advocate for applicants Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State Mr.P.B.Patil, Advocate for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 15th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.110/2009 registered with Mohadi Nagar {2} police station for an offence punishable u/s 406, 420, 464, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP, who is assisted by Mr.P.B.Patil, learned counsel for original complainant. 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Ajaykumar Birari, an Engineer, Rural Water Supply Sub Division, Panchayat Samiti, Dhule. It is alleged that a scheme to supply water to village Hendrun was introduced under the Swajaldhara Scheme. It is further alleged that the present applicant No.1 is the Chairman and applicant No.2 is the Secretary of the said Scheme of Hendrun village. The estimated value of the said scheme was Rs. 74,25,751/-, which was approved by the technical expert. It is alleged that the said scheme was to be implemented with the funds of Central Government and partly from the villagers contribution. It is also alleged that during the period 2007 till the complaint came to be lodged, total amount of Rs.63,68,410/- was provided for the said scheme to the committee headed by the applicants. As per the complainant, total amount of Rs.53,98,283/- was spent and Rs.1,15,067/- was balance, however an amount of Rs.8,15,060/-, which is deficit, is misappropriated by the applicants with the help of the technical expert and hence the complaint is lodged. {3} 4. During the course of submissions, a compilation of documents is furnished. By demonstrating various expenditure carried out by the said committee and the amounts received, it is urged that as per the record, first installment of Rs.45,98,000/- and second installment of 14,000,000/- was received from the Government and in addition to that an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- towards the contribution of the villagers were collected. Thus, total amount of Rs.63,68,000/- was available with the said committee for implementation of the said scheme. The amount of Rs. 47,99,714/- is spent on the work carried out in the first phase including the running bills. An amount of Rs.17,14,440/- was spent on the second phase of work including charges of technical expert and establishment. Thus, in all Rs.65,15,154/- is spent by the committee on the said work. Hence, it is urged that the accounts maintained by the applicants, in respect of the funds received and the expenditure carried out, goes to show that still considering the balance amount in hand, amount of Rs.5 lacs and odd is yet to be received from the grants. In the premise, the allegation that there is misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs. 8,15,060/- is without any basis and hence it is requested to allow the application. 5. Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that there is difference in the work which is shown as carried out by the applicants and the actual work. Considering this aspect, urged that if there is difference in the work actually carried out {4} and the work as projected by the applicants, it can be said that there is misappropriation of funds entrusted to the applicants for the said scheme and hence it is requested to reject the application. 6. The important aspect, which requires consideration, is that whether the account submitted by the applicants is audited and found incorrect by the complainant, answer of which is in negative. It appears that this complaint is not filed after auditing the accounts maintained by the applicants. The conclusion drawn by the complainant is on the basis of measurement carried out with the assistance of some engineers. While considering this aspect, the report of the said survey carried out and placed on record, needs to be considered. It is stated in the said report that there are certain items value of which is not determined by the said committee. In the premise, it cannot be said that the inquiry report is full fledged report submitted after auditing the accounts furnished by the applicants. In absence of any audited accounts, it cannot be inferred, at least at this stage, that there is misappropriate of funds entrusted to the applicants under the Swajaldhara scheme. In the premise, case is made out to exercise discretion u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with CR No.110/2009 registered with Mohadi Nagar police station, they be released on {5} bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. The applicants are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency and to hand over the accounts maintained by them along with copies of relevant bills and payment receipts as and when called by the concerned IO. This protection is granted till filing of the charge sheet. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4337-09