IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.268 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.268 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.268 OF 2008 Rakhi M. Howaldar ..Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.A.P.Mohanty for the Applicant Mr.Dedia APP for the Respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 22nd April, 2008. DATED : 22nd April, 2008. DATED : 22nd April, 2008. P.C. 1. The applicant is arrested in connection with bank fraud and chargesheet is filed and the is pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Chiplun. 2. The applicant, at the relevant time in the year 2006 or thereabout was working as Bank Manager of Central Bank of India. According to the prosecution the applicant was entrusted with certain cash amount by the borrowers and the applicant has not accounted for the said amounts. 3. Chargesheet has been filed. Today, during the course of arguments learned Advocate Mr. Mohanty submitted that the ingredients of entrustment with the applicant as regards the amount is lacking and therefore there is no question of criminal breach of trust and actually there is no question of cheating. According to him the applicant had credited the various amounts received, to the non-performing assets of the respective clients and the xerox of the counter foils have been produced before this Court and if they are considered it would show that the monies received by the applicant from time to time have been accounted for. In the substance, the applicant claims that she is innocent and that she had duly accounted for the money received by her as bank manager. 4. I have gone through the record, and in particular the counter foils. Learned Advocate Mr. Dedhia rightly pointed out that the counter foils, except one at serial No.115 does not bear the signature of the cashier and the counter foils relates to various persons and not to the three persons who came forward to lodge complaint i.e. Walid Kazi, Imtiaz Kazi and Rajan Shinde. 5. After having considered the entire record, I am inclined to observe that so far as the allegation of entrustment in particular and allegation of forgery, a prima facie case is made out. On the question of grant of bail it is required to be mentioned that allegations against the applicant are serious. In my view, if the applicant is ordered to be released on bail there is every likelihood that the applicant would not make herself available for trial, which is at Taluka place, particularly when the applicant hails from Calcutta and that the applicant has not been able to provide the address of Calcutta. In any case, chances of the applicant fleeing away from justice cannot be ruled out. In my view, this is a fit case where the bail application is required to be rejected. At the same time, keeping in view the fact that the applicant is a female and she is the sole accused, it would be proper to direct the learned JMFC Chiplun, District Ratnagiri to take up the trial as expeditiously as possible, particularly when the applicant has engaged a lawyer. 6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following order: ORDER i) Application for bail is rejected. ii) Learned JMFC, Chiplun before whom the case is pending for trial shall take up the trial as expeditiously as possible. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)