{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4315 OF 2009 Sunil Laxman Nehe APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.D.Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for State Mr.S.B.Ghorde Patil, Advocate for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th February 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application by which the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.130/2009 registered with Kopargaon police station for an offence punishable u/s 408, 420, 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. {2} 3. It appears that the pre-arrest bail is claimed by the applicant on the ground that after filing of the FIR, copy of the same was not forwarded to the nearest Magistrate’s Court within 24 hours and hence there is violation of section 154 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is further contention of the applicant that the alleged offence took place during the period July 2005 till May 2009, and audit was conducted during the said period from time to time, however the said offence was not registered at earlier point of time. It is contended that the applicant has sought copies of audit reports under the Right to Information Act, however the same are not supplied to him till date and on this ground also the applicant is entitled to claim liberty. 4. The action of applicant in seeking information under the Right to Information Act, during the pendency of investigation, amounts to interference in the investigation and not permissible in law. 5. Admittedly, at the material time, the applicant was serving an a clerk in the said bank. There is allegation of misappropriation of Rs.4,55,507/- at the hands of applicant by misusing password. The documents, which are shown to me during the course of submissions, indicate that about 12 fixed deposit accounts, which were closed, were reopened by the applicant and he has credited interest in the said accounts and {3} has withdrawn the amount from the said accounts. The slips of withdrawal are filled in by the applicant himself to withdraw the amounts credited by him. In the premise, to ascertain as to how he misused the password and credited the amount, his custodial interrogation is essential. 6. In the result, the application which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4315-09