1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 911 OF 2009 Shantaram Hari Dusane ..... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr ......Respondents. Mr. Anilkumar K. Patil for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 27th February 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with the offence which is likely to be registered against him on account of the auditor's report which states that the applicant, as an Education Officer, has parted huge amount of Rs 3 lacs with the co-accused and which amount was meant for distribution to the physically handicapped students. The allegation against the present applicant is that he had temporarily misappropriated the said 2 amount for about five months and, thereafter, the said amount has been deposited through the co-accused. 3. There is sufficient material on record to indicate prima facie involvement of the present applicant and, therefore, it is necessary, in my view, to interrogate the applicant. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the said amount has been deposited by the co-accused after he was suspended by the applicant and, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the Government or to the physically handicapped students. It is submitted that the applicant has put in 23 years of unblemished service. This submission, unfortunately, cannot be accepted since the auditor has given his report about the alleged misappropriation, after going through the record. The public money which is meant for the benefit of distribution to handicapped students is misappropriated and even though the said money is misappropriated for a temporary period, it is a serious offence and, therefore, application for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. Applicant may apply for regular bail which may be considered expeditiously by the competent court. 4. Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court while deciding the present application for anticipatory bail as these observations are prima facie in nature and it shall decide the criminal case on its own merits and in accordance with law. 5. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 3