1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1552 OF 2010 Anita d/o Shivaji Salve @ Anita w/o Sunil Nile ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri S.D.Ghayal, advocate for the applicant Shri K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1547 OF 2010 Gautam s/o Vithalrao Telang ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri S.G.Dargad, advocate for the applicant Shri K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 3rd May, 2010 PER COURT : 2 1 Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2 These are two applications preferred by the respective applicants seeking anticipatory ail apprehending their arrest under C.R. No. 67 of 2010, registered at City Chowk police station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 408 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since both the applications arise out of the same C.R., both the said applications are being decided by the present common order. 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Bharat Sandu Shinde, Manager of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagari Sahakari Bank (Limited), Branch Mill Corner, Aurangabad, on 27.3.2010. 4 Applicant in Criminal Application No. 1552 of 2010 namely Anita Shivaji Salve was working as Clerk in the said Bank and applicant in Criminal Application No. 1547 of 2010 namely Gautam Vitthalrao Telang was working as Cashier in the said Bank at the relevant time. 5 It is alleged that both the said applicants in collusion with each other prepared and forged the false documents and withdrew amount of Rs.99,000/- and thereby caused wrongful loss to the said Bank and wrongful gain to them, and accordingly, cheated and 3 defrauded the afore said Bank. 6 Learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 1552 of 2010 submitted that the alleged incident occurred on 17.6.2009, but the complaint came to be lodged at belated stage i.e. on 27.3.2010, which itself creates suspicion about the said complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the said applicant namely Anita had already resigned on 14.6.2009 and she was not working in the said Bank on 17.6.2009 i.e. date of occurrence of incident of alleged fraud, and hence, she has no concern with the alleged fraud. Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that said applicant is woman and is having 1½ months sucking child and has urged that her application be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. 7 Learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 1547 of 2010 submitted that the applicant namely Gautam was serving in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagari Sahkari Bank Limited at the relevant time as Cashier and he has no concern with the entries in the accounts and he simply disbursed the amount as per the cheque and hence no liability is casted upon him. Learned counsel for the said applicant, therefore, urged that his application also is required to be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. 8 Learned A.P.P. opposed both the applications vehemently 4 and submitted that although the applicant Anita has resigned on 14.6.2009, her resignation was not accepted by the Bank and she was working in the Bank thereafter also. It is also canvassed that both the applicants are in collusion with each other and their names have been reflected in the complaint and specific role/overt act has been attributed to them, and hence, there is no question of any false implication of the applicants in the present crime. Moreover, it is also canvassed that misappropriated amount of Rs.99,000/- is yet to be recovered, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary, and therefore, present applications deserve to be rejected. 9 On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering rival submissions advanced by the learned respective counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the names of both the applicants have been reflected in the contents of the complaint and specific role/overt act has been attributed to both of them categorically, and hence, it is apparent that there is no false implication of both the applicants in the present crime. Moreover, as pointed out by learned A.P.P. that although Anita had submitted the letter of resignation on 14.6.2009, it was not accepted and she was working thereafter also, and therefore, her involvement in the alleged crime cannot be ruled out. Besides that, role of both the applicants appear to be complementary to each other, which apparently led to the fraud/misappropriation of public money to the tune of Rs.99,000/-, which is yet to be recovered, and therefore, custodial interrogation of both the applicants is necessary, and hence, 5 both the applications deserve to be rejected. 10 In the result, both Criminal Application Nos. 1552 of 2010 and 1547 of 2010 stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1552.10