1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO. 1211 OF 2009 1.Shri Vijay Nivrutti Taware, 2.Shri Tanaji Shivram Shete, 3.Shri Rambhau Balaji Waikar, .. Applicants Vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Prakash Naik, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent. Mr P.G.Sarda, for the original complainant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 11/06/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned APP for the respondent and learned counsel for the original complainant. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.190 of 2008 of Faraskhana Police Station, District- Pune. The said crime has been registered against the applicants for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under section 380 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant had kept gold ornaments worth Rs.11,08,000/- in the locker of the Bank on and before 18.8.2007, when she had operated the T 2 locker last. On 9.8.2008 when she opened the locker she found that the gold ornaments were missing. Applicant no.1 is an employee of the Bank and is working as Class-II Officer in the locker section. Applicant no.2 was working as Peon in the Bank and he retired on 31.5.2008. Applicant no.3 is Branch Manager of the Bank. I have perused the FIR and the nature of allegations against all the three applicants. There is no dispute that the Bank locker can be operated only when the key with the complainant and the key which is kept with the Bank is simultaneously used for opening the locker. It is an admitted position that the locker was not operated and it was intact. In view thereof, Mr.Naik, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that it is difficult to allege that the applicants are responsible for commission of the said offence. He further submitted that there is no material on record to indicate that the complainant had deposited the gold jewelery, as claimed by her, in the locker. Having considered over all facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to confirm the interim order passed by this court on 17.3.2009 (V. M. Kanade, J.). Hence, the following order. 3 3. In the event of arrest,the applicant Nos.1 to 3 be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each 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 applicants are directed to report to the concerned police station on every alternate Saturday between 6 pm and 7 pm for a period of 90 days from today, and as and when called. 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 without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)