(1) CRI.APP. 3635.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3635 OF 2010 Smt. Vijaymala d/o Lalasaheb Patil, Age : 32 years, Occu.: Service, Permanent R/o : Village Nimsakhar, Taluka Indapur, District Pune .. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through Ausa Police Station, Taluka Ausa, District Latur (Copy of Respondent to be served on the Office of learned Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard. 2. The Application is for directions under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) CRI.APP. 3635.2010 3. The applicant is said to be the Ex-Gramsevak of Village Panchayat, Jaynagar (Tq. Ausa). It appears that, amount of Rs.1,36,170/- was granted to Mahatma Gandhi Tanta Mukti Committee of the village by way of the consolation price. Out of that amount, certain expenditure was incurred. It was however, noticed that an amount of Rs.70,021/- remained in the hands of the Secretary of the Committee i.e. original accused no.3. In the meeting dated 7.4.2010 he accepted the responsibility and agreed to deposit the said amount in the account of the Committee. 4. The Secretary however, lateron changed the stance. He stated by way of reply to the notice that the amount was handed over to the applicant but she proceeded on maternity leave and, therefore, it could not be re-deposited in the account of the Committee. Thus, he had put the blame on the applicant. 5. The applicant is a woman and is transferred from the village. There is nothing on record to show that she accepted the liability or that the Secretary (3) CRI.APP. 3635.2010 in fact transferred the amount to her. There is no receipt obtained by the Secretary from the applicant about the amount handed over to her. 6. It is argued by learned APP that the applicant committed irregularity by causing encashment of the cheque without prior permission of the competent authority and moreover did not maintain account of the amount so received. This may be a true position but for such lapses on administrative side, the applicant can be dealt with by taking appropriate Departmental action. The evidence does not prima facie show however that she was having domain over the amount in question of which the responsibility was accepted by the Secretary i.e. accused no.3. 7. Considering the record, presence of the applicant with the Police may not be necessary for the purpose of effective investigation. She is likely to be humiliated due to arrest and possibly may be even suspended after the arrest and detention. (4) CRI.APP. 3635.2010 8. Considering the foregoing reasons, the Application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail in the event of her arrest on furnishing of bail bond in sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) with one solvent surety before the Arresting Officer. She shall attend the concerned Police Station on each Sunday between 10.00 am. to 2.00 pm. for four (4) consecutive Sundays or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier and shall co-operate with the Police during the course of investigation. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp