1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1725 OF 2009 Chandrakant Geharu Satve .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.Sanjeev Kadam for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 12th June, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.18 of 2009 of Goregaon Police Station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and 26 others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 406, 407, 409, 420, 474 read with 34 of IPC. 3. This application, for the first time, was placed for hearing on 17.4.2009, when the learned A.P.P. prayed for time to take instructions. Accordingly, the application was adjourned to 24.4.2009. No interim Order was granted on that date. 2 Thereafter on 24.4.2009 the application was adjourned to 29.4.2009. On 29.4.2009, learned A.P.P. once again sought adjournment on the ground that the investigating officer was on Election duty and did not attend the court. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 7.5.2009. On 7.5.2009, once again learned A.P.P, sought time to file reply affidavit. The time as prayed was granted and the interim protection was also granted to the applicant. Thereafter the application was moved in the vacation on 12.5.2009 and on that date it was once again adjourned by consent of the parties. Today when the application was called out Mr.Saste, learned A.P.P., once again prayed for time. He does’nt seem to have taken any steps either to file reply affidavit or keep the officer present in the court today. Today he submits that he has no instructions in the matter since the officer has not turned up. I have been observing not only in this matter but in several other matters that learned A.P.P’s are either not ready with the matter or the officers do not come to the court to give instructions to A.P.P’s. It is in this backdrop I have heard this application for quite sometime and gone through the material placed before the court. 4. The applicant and 26 others are alleged to have committed several illegalities and irregularities in the banking operations and have thereby caused huge loss to the bank. Insofar as the applicant is concerned, he was a cashier in Goregaon Urban 3 Co-operative Bank. In the audit report dated 30.3.2009, the auditor has pointed out several illegalities committed in the banking operations and has also mentioned as to what role every individual accused played. I have perused the audit report and more particularly paragraph 29 thereof. In paragraph 29 there is a reference to the loan granted to Priyanka Enterprises of which one Jagruti Bharat Shah is the proprietor. That loan was granted by Chief Executive Officer on the recommendation of the Branch Manager – K.V.Khule. Thereafter two bearer cheques of Rs.25 Lacs each were issued in favour of Vinay Seth, the Vice-Chairman of the said bank. Accordingly, the cash was withdrawn and it was deposited in the account of Vinay Seth – Vice Chairman of the bank. The only role attributed and allegedly played by the applicant, as a cashier, is that he deposited the cash handed over to him by Khule and Goregaonkar in the account of Vinay Seth. K.V.Khule was the Branch Manager whereas Goregaonkar was the Assistant Manager. Goregaonkar, who was responsible for passing the cheques has already been granted bail by the Sessions Court. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and the role attributed and allegedly played by the applicant as a cashier, in my opinion, he is entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence the following order: In the event of arrest the applicant is directed to be 4 enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the conditions stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Further, the applicant is directed to report to the concerned police station on every Saturday between 7 pm and 8 pm for a period of 90 days or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Application is disposed of. (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)