1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 429 OF 2010 Murlidhar Martand Patil .. Applicant V/s State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Aniket Nikam for the applicant. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicants seek bail in connection with C.R. No. I-30 of 2009 dated 14th July 2009 registered at Ayesha Nagar Police Station, District Malegaon for an alleged offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 470 read with 34 of the I.P.C. 2 3. The prosecution case in short is tht the applicant was employed by the complainant – JJ Trading Corporation. The applicant was working as a salesman and amongst other his duties were to collect orders and recover money of the goods supplied. According to the prosecution, the applicant collected money worth Rs.20 lakhs from the customers but with the help of his two sons misappropriated the money. F..I.R. was therefore lodged against the applicant and his two sons. Two sons of the applicant, who are co-accused, have been granted bail by the Judicial Magistrate. The application of the applicant has been rejected. 4. The applicant was arrested on 30th July 2009 and the charge-sheet was filed on 27th October 2009. No receipt alleged to have been passed by the application for having received the money on behalf of the complainant is annexed to the charge-sheet. On the basis of 3 the statements recorded of the customers who have alleged that they have paid the money, it is contended that the applicant has received the money and has misappropriated it. The statements of the customers are not supported by any receipt. 5. In any event, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. Presence of the applicant is therefore not necessary for the purpose of custodial interrogation. Since the applicant has already been dismissed from service, there is no possibility of his further duping the complainant. In the circumstances, in my view, the applicant can be granted bail. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER The applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to a 4 condition that the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor threaten any of the prosecution witnesses and shall report his attendance to the concerned police station once a month between 1st and 5th day of British calendar month. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)