Cri. Apln. 5308/2010 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRINMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5308/2010 VASANT MANOHARRAO DARJE VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________ Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate,for applicant Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 23rd December, 2010 1 Heard. 2 The applicant seeks bail in Crime No. 304/2010 of Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna which is registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. There are in all three accused including the applicant. The offence was registered on 8/11/2010. The applicant was arrested on 22/11/2010. Thereafter, for nine days he was sent to police custody and thereafter since 01/02/2010 he is in magisterial custody. Since last 23 days, the applicant is in magisterial custody. In view of this, the investigation of the case as far as the applicant’s role is concerned, must have Cri. Apln. 5308/2010 2 been over and keeping him in custody would not further the cause of investigation. Despite of this, the applicant was refused bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, only on the ground that the applicant's release from custody would put hurdle in the process of the investigation. The learned judge did not give reason for drawing such a conclusion. The learned judge should have realized that while the applicant was in police custody, the police had ample opportunity to investigate into the role of the applicant which he played in committing the offence. No doubt, the huge amount is alleged to have been embezzled. Ye the police did not show any specific reason as to why they suspected that the applicant would interfere the investigation process. So the observation it seems is merely wayward guess of the learned judge. The applicant deserves bail. ORDER a) The applicant be released on bail, on his executing P.R. bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) and on furnishing one surety in like amount, before lower Court. b) The parties shall act upon copy of Cri. Apln. 5308/2010 3 this order duly authenticated by Sirastedar of this Court. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/