{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1709 OF 2010 Bajrang s/o Baburao Gaikwad Age-53 years, Occ-Service as Postal Assistnat R/o Ambajogai, Dist-Beed APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through police inspector Police Station, Yusufwadgaon, Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed RESPONDENT ....... Mr. S.S.Thombre, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 8th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.19/2010 registered with Yusufwadgaon police station, Tq-Kaij for an offence punishable u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code. {2} 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by learned APP and perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. Present offence is registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Auditor Sunil Mamidwar. It is alleged that when the applicant was serving as a Postal Assistant at Banakveda post office, during the surprise visit, cash in the sum of Rs. 21,742/- was found deficit. It is alleged that the said amount is utilized by the applicant for his own purpose instead of depositing the same with the Government Treasury. 4. It appears that thereafter the applicant was suspended and departmental inquiry was initiated against him. It also appears that later on the applicant is reinstated in service. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has deposited the deficit amount in the month of December 2008 itself. The case of the prosecution rests on documents and the FIR is registered at a delayed stage and hence the applicant claims that he be released on anticipatory bail. 5. The application is opposed by the learned APP on the ground that this is a case of misappropriation of public funds and hence custody of the applicant is necessary. 6. Considering the rival submissions it is clear that {3} though the misappropriation is alleged in the month of November 2008 and the audit was completed in the year 2008, yet the complaint is registered in the year 2010. Secondly, the alleged deficit amount is deposited by the applicant way back in the month of December 2008. The entire case of the prosecution is based on documents and the documents are now in the custody of the investigation officer. 7. In view of the above facts, it is clear that this is not a case where the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. In the premise, the application deserves to be allowed. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection granted on 4th May 2010 is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicant may apply for regular bail after filing of the charge sheet, if so advised. The applicant to attend the concerned police station, if required by the concerned IO on written requisition. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1709-10