IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 101 of 2010 Pandurang v. State of Maharashtra ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr R.M. Patwardhan, Adv for applicant Mr S.B. Ahirkar, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 8th February 2010 1. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 373/09 registered with Police Station, Lakadganj, Nagpur under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the applicant had moved before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide Misc. Criminal Application No. 2375 of 09, decided on 6.1.2010. By reasoned order it was felt that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary and considering serious nature of offence, gravity of allegations, there was no good or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 2. As against the applicant, it is stated that he was ex- President and Director of the Credit Cooperative Society. The amount deposited by seven depositors in the same of Rs. 1,72,293/- was not repaid though withdrawal was sought. It is also alleged that the present applicant had been absconding in order to avoid investigation and that under Section 73 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, he was responsible office bearer of the Society for payment of depositor’s amount payable by the Society. In order to investigate as to how many depositors were deprived of their hard-earned money deposited with the Society, it is thought necessary to interrogate the applicant in custody. 3. After having perused application, reply thereto and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in the light of submissions at the bar, I think regular court will have to decide plea for bail on merit after investigating officer avails of opportunity to interrogate, as may be permissible according to law to interrogate the applicant in custody. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. Interim order vacated. Judge. Hsj