1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4193 OF 2006 Mulchandbhai Vanarasibhai Patel .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Ms.Smita Gaidhani for applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13th December 2006 P.C. . Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with C.R.No.271 of 2006 registered by Panchavati Police station. The offences alleged 2 are punishable under section 420, 406, 408, 409 read with 34 I.P.C. 2. Applicant applied for anticipatory bail. The applicant was enlarged on interim anticipatory bail. Pursuant thereto, applicant was attending Panchavati police station. On 13th November 2006 Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik dismissed applicant’s application for anticipatory bail. Applicant was one of the Directors. He resigned as Director in November 2002. In any event as a borrower, he had availed of loan/advances which amount has been repaid fully with interest. Applicant has been issued "No Dues" certificate by the Administrator. In these peculiar circumstances, the applicant deserves to be protected. 3. This application is opposed by the learned A.P.P. on the basis that the auditor’s report discloses that the present applicant, as 3 one of the Directors, was involved in sanctioning or disbursing of loans. It is not as if the applicant alone being the borrower and his dues having been cleared that he can escape criminal liabilities. Therefore, for all such disbursement the applicant is liable and he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 4. The misappropriation is for a period from 1st April 1992 to 30th September 2005 and the amount involved is more than Rs.3.50 Crores. 5. Having perused the application and annexures thereto, including orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge so also role attributed to the applicant, I am of the view that custodial interrogation insofar as present applicant is concerned, is not necessary. He has already attended the concerned police station. Therefore, it does not appear to me that custodial interrogation of the applicant is 4 necessary. His application, therefore, can be granted by imposing appropriate conditions. More so, when the Board is superseded and the Administrator has been appointed. All books of accounts including the proceedings and minutes of the meetings of Board of Directors have also been seized. Following order would, therefore, sub-serve the ends of justice. i) In the event of the arrest of the applicant in connection with C.R.No.271 of 2006 registered with Panchavati Police Station, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. ii) The bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant to forthwith surrender his passport, if any, to the I.O. Applicant shall not leave Nashik city without prior permission of trial 5 court. The applicant shall report to E.O.W.Crime Branch, Nashik once a week on every Monday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. till the charge sheet is filed and thereafter as directed by the trial court till conclusion of trial. iii) Bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer/ investigating agency. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. iv) Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any 6 finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial v) This order will enure to the benefit of the applicant only till charge sheet is filed. Thereafter, he will be free to apply to the appropriate court for appropriate relief. vi) Application is disposed of in above terms. vii) The parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)