1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1276 of 2010 Mangesh Prabhakar Yamatkar ..VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.V.Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.R.Taywade, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 16 th Novem ber , 2010 . Heard. This is an application filed by the applicant for grant of pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 113/2010 registered at Police Station, Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal, for the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. A report came to be lodged against the applicant, who was working as a Secretary of Panchayat Samity, Wani, alleging that he has misappropriated the amount of Rs.7,04,803/-. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the various public works were undertaken under the various schemes of the Government and the authorities of Panchayat Samiti had also inspected the work. Learned Advocate further submitted that an enquiry was also conducted in the matter and the enquiry officer has arrived at a conclusion that the charges are not proved against the applicant. Learned Advocate for the applicant has placed on record a copy of said enquiry report for perusal of the Court. It is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. Learned Advocate further submits that the applicant being the Secretary of Pachayat 2 Samiti, is duty bound to execute the various Government schemes. According to applicant, he was not having any financial powers and therefore, valuation report of the various works was also submitted to the superior officers of Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal for approval and the same is under consideration. Learned Advocate for the applicant further submits that initially the applicant was protected by this Court vide order dated 24/8/2010 and the protection was continued from time to time. Learned Advocate also submits that the applicant was called upon by the investigating agency and he has fully cooperated with the investigating agency. Learned APP for the respondent/State fairly submits that he has no instructions so as to say that the applicant has neither followed the directions given by this Court nor cooperated with the investigating agency. Considering the submissions of learned Advocate for the applicant, I am of the opinion that a case is made out by the applicant for grant of pre-arrest bail. The apprehension expressed by the APP that the applicant will not be available for investigation, can be taken care of by directing the applicant to follow the directions and abide by the conditions imposed by this court vide order dated 24/8/2010. In the result, the application is allowed. The interim protection granted by this Court on 24/8/2010 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions as imposed vide order dated 24/8/2010. Hamdast permitted. Criminal Application is disposed of. JUDGE Diwale