1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.3849 of 2007 (Gopal Raghunath Yadav v. State of Maharashtra) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri N.D. Thombre, Advocate for Applicant. Smt. T.D. Khade, APP for State. CORAM : A.H. Joshi, J. DATE : 11th June, 2008 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. It is seen from the record that the applicant is alleged to have misappropriated the amount of Rs.49,72,289/- from personal ledger account and cash of Rs.66,095/- was actually found short when checked on 31-8-2007 in cash box. 3. But from the facts emerging from the record, prima facie the applicant appears to involved in the commission of offence in relation to charge of shortage of cash, and it cannot be said that his involvement is on account of false grounds. 4. Even today, it is not a case of the applicant that every rupee, which has come to the cash box, is duly accounted for and supported by voucher. From this very additional aspect, it is obvious that the applicant is prima facie involved in commission of offence. 5. Applicant states that it was the duty of the Administrative Officer 2 to keep the accounts being Drawing and Disbursing Officer, and also that he did not get opportunity to write and check the accounts. 6. Prima facie, no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the application for claiming that no misappropriation of the aforesaid amount is done, does not inspire confidence. 7. Whether custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary or not is one aspect of the matter and whether there is a case or no case against the accused is another aspect. 8. Device of anticipatory bail is not for avoiding every possible arrest. 9. The applicant is, therefore, not entitled to any protection by this Court. 10. The application does not merit interference. It is, therefore, dismissed. Interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court on 18-12-2007 stands vacated. JUDGE pdl