{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 396 OF 2010 Sunita w/o Yashant Rathod @ Sunita Deepchand Naik Age-30 years, Occ-Service R/o Gat No.55, Plot No.25, Shiv Colony, Jalgaon APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 9th February 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application by which the applicant has prayed to release her on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with CR No.349/2009 registered with Jilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon for an offence punishable u/s 420, 409, 467, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. {2} 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Ashok Patil, who has a joint account along with his wife bearing A/c No.25/25 in Tapi Cooperative Credit Socieity, Chopdada, branch at Ganesh Colony, Jalgaon. It is alleged that wife of the complainant has died in the year 2006, however he has not intimated the said fact to the bank. When he visited the bank in the month of November 2008, he came to know that two transactions of withdrawal have been done without his notice. It is alleged that one transaction is dated 16.05.2008 in respect of transfer of Rs.29,898/- in the account of someone else and another transaction dated 14.11.2008 in respect of transfer of Rs. 61,000/- from his account. It also appears that the said complaint has been lodged against one Shailesh Shinde, who was working in the said branch as clerk cum cashier and the present applicant is working as an Assistant Branch Manager. 4. Perusal of papers of investigation indicates that the present applicant has joined the said branch in the month of July 2008. Hence, it is urged that the applicant cannot be held responsible for the incident dated 16.05.2008. According to learned counsel for applicant, the applicant was on leave on 14.11.2008 at the time of alleged second transaction. It is alleged that it was the plan of accused Shailesh Shinde who has worked out the same in respect of transfer of money without knowledge of the account holder. It is not disputed that on that day the applicant was not present in the bank. It is the statement of the accomplice, Shailesh {3} that he has transferred the money on the instructions of the applicant on phone as according to him the applicant has directed him to clear the transaction as she had seen the same on earlier day. The document, on the basis of which amount was transferred, forms part of record, but that does not indicate that the same was presented in the bank a day prior to 14.11.2009. There is no entry to that effect on the said document. In the premise, if the document is silent as the same was presented in the bank on 13.11.2009, then it prima facie appears that the applicant had no occasion to see the same a day prior and direct the accused Shailesh to clear the same. Therefore, this appears to be a case of false implication of the applicant. In the premise, case is made out to exercise discretion u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 5. In the result, the application is allowed. The interim protection granted on 01.02.2010 is hereby confirmed. This protection to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. Thereafter, the applicant may apply for regular bail before the trial court. Applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency and attend the police station, is required, on written requisition. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln396-10