{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3488 OF 2009 1. Yuvraj s/o Vishnupatnt Ogale Patil Age-42 years, Occ-Agri 2. Sow.Surekha w/o Jayant Pachbhai Age-40 years, Occ-Household & Agri. Both R/o Satephal, Tq-Kallam Dist-Osmanabad APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Superintendent of Police Osmanabad, Dist-Osmanabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 20th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants are praying to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.75/2009 registered with Yermala police station for an offence punishable u/s 409 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. {2} 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. As the notice of this application was already served on the respondents, learned APP has made available the papers of investigation for my perusal. 3. It appears that interim protection is granted to the applicants vide order dated 8th October 2009, which is still in force. 4. It appears that a scheme Bharat Nirman Programme through Gram Panchayat, was introduced in Satephal Gram Panchayat. It is also not disputed that the applicant No.1 is the Chairman and applicant No.2 is the Secretary of the said scheme. It is also not disputed that under the said scheme grant of Rs.10,50,000/- was received. The statement of account of Gramin Pani Purvatha Scheme, Satephal is forming part of the papers of investigation and the authority lies with applicant No.1 to operate this account and to withdraw the amounts from that account. Account extract of the said account from State Bank of India, Yedshi branch shows that the amount from the said account was withdrawn from time to time from 17.10.2008 to 08.12.2008. Out of the said withdrawals only the amount which was paid to the Technical Consultant and spent for purchase of cement are effected through cheques whereas the remaining amount is withdrawn by applicant No.1 in cash. Though it is stated that the account of expenditure was maintained by the applicants, yet no account is shown to the auditor who has conducted audit on complaint. As the amounts are withdrawn by applicant No.1, the primary responsibility lies on the applicant No.1 to explain about the same. No such account is coming either before the investigating officer or before the auditor who has conducted the audit. {3} 5. Considering the submissions advanced across the bar, it prima facie appears that applicant No.1 has played an active role in withdrawing the funds which were entrusted to him. However the case of applicant No.2 can be distinguished from that of applicant No.1. In the premise, no case is made out for exercising the discretion so far as applicant No.1 is concerned. However, to some extent, case is made out to exercise the discretion in respect of applicant No.2. 6. In the result, the application is partly allowed. The application, so far as it relates to applicant No.1, is rejected and the interim protection granted to the applicant No.1 stands vacated. However, anticipatory bail application of applicant No.2 is hereby allowed. The interim protection granted to applicant No.2 Surekha is extended for a further period of 6 weeks within which time she may apply for regular bail. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Applicant No.2 is hereby directed to attend the concerned police station as and when required by the investigation officer on requisition in writing. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3488-09