1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.950 OF 2010 Suryabhan s/o Bhaurao Warule ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Shri D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 25th March, 2010. ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard both the learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, requesting to enlarge him on bail in connection with Crime No. 16/2010, registered at M.I.D.C. Ahmednagar Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 408, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code since he was arrested thereunder on 10.2.2010 and he is under judicial custody presently. 2 3. It appears that, the complaint was registered on the report lodged by one Arun Madhukar Geer on 8.2.2010, which discloses that the applicant herein being Secretary of the society during the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2008, received certain amounts from the borrowers of the society towards the repayment of their loan amounts and issued receipts therefor, but did not deposit the said amounts in the account of the society and thereby committed misappropriation of the amount of Rs.14,45,182/-, out of which the amount of Rs.11,60,190/- was direct misappropriation whereas the amount of Rs.2,84,992/- was the indirect misappropriation. 4. On the aforesaid allegations, the learned counsel for the applicant urged that the applicant was transferred from the said Society to Ahmednagar on 18.7.2006 and, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the transactions after 18.7.2006 and subsequently the applicant was retired in March 2007 and before that he stopped working from 29.7.2006 due to his ill health. The learned counsel for the applicant also canvassed that he on his own issued letter dated 15.5.2009 Exh. B to the complainant herein and thereby offered himself for the explanation, if any, but same was not accepted. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that every withdrawal is to be counter-signed by the Chairman, but the Chairman/ beneficiary has not been made 3 accused in the present offence and applicant only has been implicated in this case falsely. 5. The learned A.P.P. countered the said arguments and opposed the present application vehemently and invited my attention to the very complaint lodged by the complainant Mr. Arun Madhukar Geer, wherein 34 events have been enumerated in respect of the direct misappropriation and 12 events have been listed in respect of the indirect misappropriation and about involving the direct misappropriation to the tune of Rs.11,60,190.75 and amount of indirect misappropriation is Rs.2,84,992/-, totalling the amount of misappropriation of Rs.14,45,182.75. The learned A.P.P. canvassed that the said amount of misappropriation belong to the poor farmers and nothing has been recovered so far. It is also submitted that the investigation is still under progress and same has not been completed. 6. On perusal of the investigation papers and also after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel for the parties, as mentioned hereinabove, the very complaint reflects that there are 34 events of direct misappropriation amounting to Rs.11,60,190.75 and there are 12 events of indirect misappropriation amounting to Rs.2,84,992/-, totalling misappropriation to the tune of Rs.14,45,182.75 and 4 nothing from the said alleged misappropriated amount has been recovered so far. Even assuming for the sake of assumption and without admitting that the applicant was transferred from the said society on 18.7.2006, he is certainly responsible for the alleged misappropriation from 1.4.2005 to 18.7.2006. 7. In the circumstances, considering the aforesaid position and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the amount involved therein and further considering the position that the investigation is still under progress and same has not been completed and nothing from the alleged misappropriated amount has been recovered so far, I am of the view that present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and it is not desirable to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. In the result, present application stands dismissed since it sans merits. 9. Needless to state that the aforesaid observations are made in respect of present application only and same shall not be considered while deciding any matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cri950.10