abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 638 OF 2008 Ajay Uttam Pawar .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.A.P. Mundargi i/b Mr.R.S. Kate for the applicant. Mr.S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 11TH MARCH 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has been arrested in connection with C.R. No.17/2007 registered with Pandharpur City Police Station for the alleged offence punishable under sections 403, 406, 408, 467, 468 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the application for bail was rejected by the Sessions Court by an order dated 22nd February 2008 in Criminal Misc. Application No.25 of 2008, the applicant has approached this Court for bail. - 2 - 3. The prosecution case in brief is that at the relevant time the applicant was working as a Tahsildar in Tahsil Pandharpur, District Solapur. Certain unspent funds relating to Sanjay Ganhi Niradhar Yojana were required to be refunded/returned to the Secretary, Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana, Solapur. Accordingly, the applicant took out three demand drafts drawn in favour of the Secretary, Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. However, only one of the demand drafts was received by the Secretary and two demand drafts were fraudulently encashed. It is alleged that the applicant is responsible for the same and is accordingly charged. 4. It is not in dispute that the demand drafts were drawn by the applicant in the name of Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. The demand drafts were sent to the Secretary through Mr.Konapure, an employee in the Tahsildar Office. Thus, it appears that fraud was committed at his end and one Mr.Chitnis, another employee in the office of the Tahsildar was also a party to the fraud. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the Tahsildar ought to have handed over the demand drafts personally and ought not to have sent them through the messenger. He was therefore negligent in his duties. No - 3 - rule was pointed out to me which requires the Tahsildar to hand over the demand drafts personally. Even if such rule exists, the applicant would be negligent rather than a party to the fraud. 6. The applicant is a Class II government officer and had returned the unspent money not in cash but by a demand draft. 7. It is alleged that a large scale fraud has been committed in the State and some Tahsildars have returned the money in cash instead of by demand drafts. Even such Tahsildars have been granted bail by various orders passed by this Court. For example, Jayashri Popat Jadhav was granted bail by an order dated 4th December 2007 in Criminal Application No.3798 of 2007 and Ratan Keshavrao Sarvade was granted bail by an order dated 30th January 2008 in Criminal Application No.26 of 2008. 8. The case of the present applicant is no worse than the said two Tahsildars. In the circumstances, the applicant is entitled to bail on the similar conditions. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER ORDER ORDER The applicant be released on bail in connection with the - 4 - offence mentioned above on executing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties of the aggregate amount of Rs.50,000/- subject to the following conditions. (a) The applicant shall not make any inducement nor give any threats to any of the prosecution witnesses. (b) The applicant shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. (b) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station once every month between 1st and 5th day of the British calendar month and also cooperate with the investigation and shall also attend the office of the Investigating Officer as and when specifically summoned by him. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)