* 1 * Cri.Appln-3720/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3720 OF 2010 Laxmikant Vishwanath Madane ........ Applicant : V E R S U S : State of Maharashtra [Solapur Taluka Police Station] ....... Respondent ********** Mr. P.G. Sarda, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale, APP for State­respondent. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 30th AUGUST, 2010. P.C. :­ 1. The applicant who is accused in C.R. No.35/2009 registered with Solapur Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 418, 467, 468 and 420 Indian Penal Code files this application for anticipatory bail. The applicant at the relevant time was working as a Branch Manager of Wainganga Krishna Gram Bank, Ule Branch. There was an Account opened in * 2 * Cri.Appln-3720/2010 the name of Grampanchayat, Honsal with the bank pursuant to a scheme by name Bharat Nirman Yojna for providing drinking water facility to the villagers. The amount in the account consisted of contribution of the villagers and the grant from the Government. The total amount deposited with the bank was Rs. 4,84,621/­. There were specific instructions given in writing to the bank that no amount should be allowed to be withdrawn from the account, unless it is approved by the Block Development Officer. One Sangayya Swami who was working as Gram Sevak had by forging signatures of the Sarpanch withdrawn the entire amount of Rs.4,53,700/­ from the bank by presenting 18 cheques therefor. The applicant is concerned with withdrawal of 14 cheques. He claims that the amount was allowed to be withdrawn by him without the approval of the Block Development Officer because it had been represented by him by Sangayya Swami that no approval of the Block Development Officer was required because the Gram Panchayat was to take up the work by itself and not employ a Contractor for the purpose. Admittedly, the applicant made no enquiries with the Block Development Officer to confirm the oral representation made to him, which was contrary to the instructions received in writing. * 3 * Cri.Appln-3720/2010 2. In these circumstances, the complaint makes out a prima­ facie case against the applicant and this is not a case fit for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is rejected. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]