{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1643 OF 2010 Shardabai w/o Siddharth Sonvane APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. S.P.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 10th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant, who was Sarpnch of village Kaudgaon, has prayed to release her on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with CR No.59/2010 registered with Hatta police station for an offence punishable u/s 409 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Also perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. {2} 3. It appears that the said complaint is lodged by Extension Officer, alleging that the funds Rs.1,82,625/- provided by the Government for implementation of "Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna" for the period 2003-04 and 2004-05 for construction of roads and other facilities in the said village, have been misappropriated by the applicant with the help of Village Development Officer. It is alleged that funds of Rs.2,71,235/- were sanctioned under the said scheme and the same was to be utilized for the construction of roads. It is further alleged that during the audit of the said village panchayat it is noticed by the complainant that without carrying out the work for which the funds were sanctioned, the same are shown as utilized by the applicant in the capacity of Sarpanch and thus, has misappropriated the government funds. It further appears that after getting sanction from the Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, vide order dated 16.03.2010, the said complaint came to be lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant states that now the applicant is ceased to be the Sarpanch of the said village and there is delay in lodging the complaint as the misappropriation is alleged during the period 2003-04 and 2004-05, however the complaint is lodged in the year 2010. It is further urged that now all the documents are seized and are in the custody of the investigating officer and hence custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. Learned counsel for applicant has thus urged that the applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. {3} 5. The application is opposed by the learned APP. 6. On perusal of the record it is clear that though the funds are shown to be utilized for certain work yet the same work is never carried out by the applicant. At least at this stage it prima facie appears that the funds are adjusted by the applicant without doing the work for which the funds were provided. Learned APP has submitted that the funds are yet to be recovered and to unearth as to how the funds are adjusted, which could not have been done without signatures of the applicant, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. 7. In the premise, custodial interrogation of the applicant, to unearth the fact as to how the government funds are adjusted, is must. No case is made out by the applicant to release her on anticipatory bail. 8. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1643-10