1 Cri.A.1473.11+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1473 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...APPLICANT. VERSUS Venkat S/o Sakharam Chandure, Age : 56 years, Occup.: Service, R/o Bank Colony, Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, District Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1474 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...APPLICANT. VERSUS Vidyasahgar Shivrudra Kole Age : 56 years, Occup.: Bank Manager, R/o Panchal Colony Dapka Road, Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, District Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. B.J.Sonwane,A.P. P for Applicant. Shri. D.S.Mali, Advocate for Respondents. ... CORAM: T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 27TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Respondent from proceeding-Criminal Application No. 1474 of 2011 has appeared. The Office record shows that respondent from proceeding- Criminal Application No. 1473 of 2011 was also served, but he 2 Cri.A.1473.11+1 has not turned up. Both the sides are heard. 2. Advocate for respondent from proceeding-Criminal Application No. 1474 of 2011 has produced copies of affidavits of Prakash Nagorao Sagar and Laxman Muktaji Gangthade, in support of his submission. APP has produced list of beneficiaries, copies of papers of investigation and record in respect of internal audit. 4. These applications are filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court in Crime No. 03 of 2011, registered with Aurad Shahajani, Tq. Nilanga District Latur for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Respondent from first proceeding was working as Bank Inspector, in Latur District Central Co-operative Bank, branch Ambulga Tq, Nilanga and Respondent from second proceeding was working as Branch Manager of this branch. The Sessions Court has granted relief of anticipatory bail to both applicants, by holding that custodial interrogation is not necessary. 6. A Crime is registered on the basis of of report given by one Maroti 3 Cri.A.1473.11+1 Maske who was working as Internal Auditor and who detected the fraud. He has made allegation that during internal audit, he noticed that false record is created by both these respondents-accused with regard to disbursement of amount received from Central Government in respect of crop insurance. There are allegations that, when amount was to be disbursed to the beneficiaries mentioned in the list, the amount is not reached to them and false record is created to show that amount was reached. The amount was withdrawn by creating false record and was misappropriated. Second allegation is that some persons were not shown as beneficiary in the list prepared by the Government, but some amount was transferred in their names to show that they are beneficiaries and said amount was withdrawn, behind their back. 7. In the report given to the Police names of both the applicants are mentioned. Papers of investigation show that there are statements of witnesses, in whose name amount had come and also there are statements of persons who were falsely shown as beneficiaries and in whose name some amount was transferred and withdrawn by creating false record. Statements of witness- Suryakant Warad shows that for the year 2006 no amount was received under the aforesaid head in his name, but amount of Rs. 20,400/- was shown to be credited and it was withdrawn by using false 4 Cri.A.1473.11+1 signature of Suryakant Warad. There are similar statements of Bajirao Birajdar, Kisan Parkonde, Jeevan Lakhane, Sadanand Birajdar, Trievanbai Birajdar and others. 8. Advocate for respondents has relied on copies of affidavits of Prakash Nagorao Sagar and Laxman Muktaji Gangthade. Police recorded their statements on 25.1.11. In their statements, they have contended that their names were not in the list of beneficiaries, but amount was shown to be credited in their names and amount was withdrawn by these accused by creating false record. They have made allegation that signatures appearing on the record are not made by them. It appears that affidavits were obtained from these two persons in favour of Branch Manager on 03.02.2011. At this stage it can be said that an attempt of tampering the prosecution evidence is made. Investigation needs to be done in this regard also. When there is allegation that false record was created and false signatures were obtained from, custodial interrogation is must. The Sessions Court has not considered this aspect of the case and committed error in granting relief of anticipatory bail to both the respondents. Allegation made against the respondent-branch manager is that he has misappropriated more than Rupees Four lacks. These two respondents( Ori. applicants) have also made misappropriation of amount 5 Cri.A.1473.11+1 of Rupees three lacks together. APP submitted that there was similar allegations against Branch Manager in the past, but on that occasion he had deposited the amount, so bank had not taken further action. 9. The order of Sessions Court is very cryptic and in the order no circumstance, which is required to be considered, is not considered by the Sessions Court. In support of this submission, learned APP placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs Prtapsinha @ Sanjay Shankarrao Chavan and others, reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2709. In this case by referring many cases of the Apex Court, this Court has observed that when order of bail is perverse and order is based on irrelevant considerations, such order be cancelled. There cannot be any dispute about this propositions. Therefore, this Court holds that order made in respect of both respondents needs to be cancelled. So, both the applications are allowed and orders made by the Sessions Court in respect of both respondents stand cancelled. No interim relief to both respondents. 10. The parties to act upon the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Shirastedar of this Court. Sd/- [ T.V.NALAWADE, J.] MTK 6 Cri.A.1473.11+1