1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIM8INAL APPLICATION NO.: 2476 OF 2009 Kadu Shriram Sonar Versus The State of Maharashtra. *** Mr. Naseem R. Shaikh, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. P. M. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant. He informs that the accused, during the course of his employment with the bank, did not adhere the required precautions of visiting the field of the borrowers to verify its beneficiality and worth to advance the loan. However, this by itself will not attract the infraction of sections 406, 409, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The counsel, during the course of his submission, took me to the departmental inquiry conducted by an Advocate as an Inquiry Officer and he has exonerated the accused/ applicant by order dated 13th June, 2009. Hence, the counsel urged to entertain application for pre-arrest bail. 3. The report of the inquiry officer at internal page 10, shows that at-least on fourteen occasions he has 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. inquired with the society to furnish the papers in relation to the twelve charges indicated against the accused applicant. However, the office bearers or the administration did not make available the relevant papers, record, nor the copies were given. Consequently, the inquiry officer was compelled to record a finding negativing the charges. At this stage, this by itself will not be a ground to entertain pre-arrest bail. The role attributed to the accused/ applicant is obvious. He did not adhere to the duties assigned to him, thereby the financial institution was put to losses and in complete record was made available. At this stage, no case for pre-arrest bail. Application rejected. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:31/07/2009. ans/2476