1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4568 OF 2010 Chetansing Sumershing Patil ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. V.P. Patil, advocate for applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade , A.P.P. for respondent/State. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 2 nd December, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The application is for anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the investigation papers. 3. The applicant was working as Deputy Manager of the Co-operative Bank during the relevant period. The F.I.R. is lodged by Incharge Manager of Chopada Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chopada on 07.10.2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 r/w Section 120-B and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. was lodged against the Manager and the Deputy Manager i.e. applicant 2 alleging that both of them in collusion with each other got prepared the false record regarding the loan transactions, proceeding books and the accounts of various members/borrowers. They together got withdrawn an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/-. Applicant-Chetansing was the Deputy Manager and on his behalf, the learned Advocate submits that the applicant has been victimized by the Directors of the Co-operative Bank. It is contended that the applicant is ready and willing to co-operate with the Investigating Officer. It is further contended that the alleged offences are based on record which is already seized by the Police. In this view of the matter, applicant- Chetansing seeks directions under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging that he is likely to be arrested without any sufficient reason and may be humiliated due to the arrest. 4. The investigation papers prima facie shows that the Cashier, by name, Amol Kolhe categorically described the role played by the applicant in the financial irregularities and embezzlement. His police statement shows that the applicant visited the branch of the Bank, where he was working as Cashier and presented the cheques. Thus, the cheques of which the details are given by him were passed for payment by the applicant himself. The statement of Amol Kolhe further says that the applicant withdrew the amounts on 19th March, 2008 vide 12 3 cheques of which the details are given in his police statement. Thus, he received the huge amount under the cheques, which were passed for payments by himself and were in respect of the accounts of the other persons. Considering this prima facie evidence about the involvement of the applicant in withdrawal of various amount and preparing of the cheques for payments, it is difficult to grant him discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application is, therefore, dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri4568.10