1 CA-5803.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5803 OF 2010 Pramod Madhavrao Shirsat .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri S.K. Shinde i/b P.G. Badole for the Applicant. Ms P.H. Kantharia, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JANUARY 12, 2011 P.C: 1. The applicant Pramod Madhavrao Shirsat was working as a Clerk in the SETU office at Nashik. who is alleged to have assisted the Project Officer in preparing lists of beneficiaries under a scheme under which the Government gave gold mangalsutras to Adivasis. An offence was registered on the allegation that 440 such gold mangalsutras were misappropriated. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the total amount of misappropriation alleged is Rs.26,40,000/-. The applicant has nothing to do with this misappropriation. All the same, in order to 2 CA-5803.10 show his bona fide and without prejudice to his rights, the applicant would deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- since there are eight other persons alleged to be involved in the commission of the crime. In view of this, the presence of the applicant in custody for the purpose of investigation may not be necessary. 2. In view of the above, in the event of his arrest the applicant be released on bail in C.R. No.I-696 of 2010 of Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik (now transferred to the Economic Offences Wing, Nasik) on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.30,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall deposit with the trial Court a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within two weeks from today and the balance of Rs.2,00,000/- within four weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the learned trial Court shall invest the amount in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank and shall deal with the same at the end of the trial as per the result of the case. 3. The applicant shall report at the police station concerned on 15-1-2011 at 10:00 3 CA-5803.10 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter as and when required by the I.O.. The applicant 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and he shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court. 4. This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicant may furnish fresh bond before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 2-12-2010, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 7615 of 2009 {Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.}. 5. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)