1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5546 OF 2009 Ravishankar Rajendranath Mishra .. Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar i/b Mr. Avinash Khanderao for the applicant. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 13TH JANUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No.I-17 of 2009 registered at Taloja Police Station. 3. The applicant is charged with an offence 2 punishable under sections 408, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the I.P.C. The case arose out of an F.I.R. lodged by a director of M/s Winget Construction Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd. (for short “the Company”). The case of the prosecution is that the applicant is working as Chief Accountant and he was in possession of a cheque book of the company. He forged the signatures and issued the cheques in favour of Jain Engineering Works and Vijay Enterprises, and thereby siphoned off a sum of Rs. 63,26,035/- between the period from 16th April 2007 and 17th November 2008. 4. F.I.R. was lodged on 22nd January 2009. There is gross delay in lodging the F.I.R. which is sought to be explained by stating that the company was not aware of the forgery and siphoning off of the money. The company is a private limited company and its accounts are audited. Income-tax returns must also have been filed regularly. Returns for the period 3 upto 31st March 2008 must have been filed in September-October 2008. At least at that time, the company would have come to know about the alleged siphoning off of the money. No explanation has been offered why the company did not come to know of the said offence The delay in lodging of thee F.I.R. is not satisfactorily explained. Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. Further detention of the applicant in prison is therefore not necessary for investigation. 5. Learned A.P.P. submits that the applicant hails from the State of West Bengal and therefore should not be granted bail. The applicant owns and resides in a flat at Pavel at the address mentioned in the title of the application. Thus, the applicant has a permanent place of residence at Panvel. The State of origin of the applicant is therefore not relevant. In any event, condition of regular attendance at the police station would serve the 4 purpose. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER The applicant be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.40,000/- with two or three sureties to make up the total amount of Rs. 40,000/-, subject to a condition that the applicant shall report his presence to the concerned police station once every month between 1st and 5th day of British calendar. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)