1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2102/2011 SHRI MILIND S/O RAMHANDRA TRIBHUWAN AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2150/2011 SUBHASH S/O VITHAL KALEKAR AND OTHERS _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________ Mr. S.S. Deve, Advocate for applicants. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for respondents No.1 and 2. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, VACATION JUDGE Date : 25th May, 2011. 1 These are applications for anticipatory bail. 2 The accused are being prosecuted for offences punishable under section 420, 379, 406, 409 read with section 34 of Indian Penal code. The present applicants were granted interim anticipatory bail by Sessions Court but their application came to be rejected on the ground that they did not comply with the conditions imposed. It is submitted by the learned counsel that they were not knowing procedure. As such they did not take the signatures of the concerned 2 officer of Police Station. Subsequently, they have taken the signatures. The learned A.P.P. accepts this position. Shri Khandagale learned counsel assisting the P.P. also submits that the applicants prima facie are involved in the offence of cheating and mis-appropriation and breach of trust. Nominee is not entitled for the amount and Varsha has withdrawn the amount so also gold ornaments and the accused persons have assisted her in the said crime. 3 The joint account holder is entitled to operate the account in absence of other joint account holder. It is not disputed that Varsha was the wife of deceased. She was joint account holder and also a nominee in some of the accounts. 4 In application No. 2102/2011 the applicants are the Bank officers. Prima facie, no animus can be attributed to them. 5 Taking into account the above discussion, I do not feel that custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. The case revolves around documentary evidence. In the result, the applications are allowed. a) In the event of arrest, the applicants No.1 to 3 in both the petitions, be 3 released on bail, on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand) each with one surety each of like amount. b) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and the evidence and shall co-operate with the investigation. c) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station on every Sunday between 11.00 a. m. to 2.00 p.m.. d) The applications are disposed of. e) The parties to act upon copy of this order duly authenticated by Sirastedar of this Court. [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,] VACATION JUDGE ts k/cri.appln2102.11