1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4780 OF 2009 S. Ayub M. Hussain Inamdar .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. V.V. Purwant for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No. 507 of 2008 registered at Mohol Police Station, District Solapur, for an alleged offence punishable under sections 406, 408, 409 and 420 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. 2 3. The applicant was a director (member of the managing committee) of Priyadarshini Nagrik Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. (for short “the Society”). After an audit of the Society, an F.I.R. was lodged on 14th December 2008 that the members of the managing committee of the Society had committed several irregularities in granting loans and thereby caused loss to the Society. Accordingly, an offence was registered against members of the managing committee and some of the employees of the Society. 4. By an order passed by me today in Criminal Application No.4820 of 2009, one of the employees has been granted bail. I am informed at the Bar that the other members of the managing committee of the Society have been granted bail by the Sessions Court on 26th May 2009. The role alleged to have been played by the applicant is no different than the other members of the managing committee who 3 have been released on bail by the Sessions Court. Hence, the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. 5. There was some controversy as to whether the applicant is in custody or not. Learned counsel for the applicant however handed over to me a copy of the order dated 4th August 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1040 of 2009. Perusal of the application and the order passed thereon leaves no matter of doubt that the applicant had surrendered before the Court and had applied for bail. Though his bail application was rejected, he was not taken in physical custody. Counsel submits that since the applicant had surrendered himself, the applicant was in custody of the Court. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, 1980 SCC 508, following which this Court has held in Dr. 4 Sanjivani P. Kale v. State of Maharashtra ­ (Criminal Application No.3 of 2008 decided on 14th January 2008, Coram: D.G. Karnik, J.) that when an accused appears before the Court, he is under the control of the Court and is entitled to apply for bail. 6. For these reasons, the applicant is entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER The applicant is granted bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/­ with two sureties of the like amount. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)