1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.976 of 2009, Criminal Application No.979 of 2009, Criminal Application No.982 of 2009, Criminal Application No.985 of 2009, And Criminal Application No.988 of 2009 (Dilip Sudhakar Satfale v. The State of Maharashtra) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri Shri G.M. Shitut, Advocate for Applicant. 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 a Sectional Engineer in Minor Irrigation Works Department of Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, for anticipatory bail can be disposed of by common order. The applicant was entrusted with the execution of various works in Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojna. It was found that the applicant had misappropriated amounts from various sanctioned funds by showing wrong measurements, not engaging labourers, who were supposed to be engaged, and not paying the labourers, who were engaged. The applicant was placed under suspension and a report was made to the police. The applicant applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court at Nagpur, which 2 granted him interim relief by order dated 16-1-2009. 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 applicant states that since the applicant was suspended on 1-11-2007, he had no concern with the spot inspection, which was done on 7-11- 2007, 30-11-2007 and 10-12-2007 and, therefore, cannot comment upon the various irregularities allegedly noticed. He submits that since his client had attended the Police Station and had made himself available for interrogation by the police so far, now his custodial interrogation may not be necessary. The learned APP states that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary in order to first recover the amounts misappropriated and also to know the modus operandi by which the State has been defrauded by lacs of rupees. The learned APP also states that the investigating machinery wants to unearth the link with other persons, who might have helped in preparing forged bills. As far as the question of recovery of amount defalcated is concerned, the applicant was given a chance to state whether he would be in a position to deposit the part of the amounts allegedly misappropriate so as to prove his bona fides. But the learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is not ready to deposit the amount. In view of this, in order to enable the police to trace 3 the amount, which has been defalcated by the applicant, it cannot be said that the custodial interrogation of the applicant would not be necessary. The applications are, therefore, rejected. Later on : At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is ready to deposit 25% of the sums allegedly defalcated without prejudice to his rights and to furnish security in respect of 25% of those sums within three weeks, i.e. by 21-4-2009, before the Trial Court. In view of this, in the event of arrest of the applicant, 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 may be 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 within the stipulated period. 4 The applications are disposed of. Judge. Pdl.