abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2755 OF 2007 Smt. Mrunal Sunil Gite .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.S.V. Marwadi for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant seeks bail in connection with the offence registered with Ozar Police Station, Nasik under C.R. No.47/2006 punishable under sections 409, 408 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant, at the relevant time, was a member of the Managing Committee of Hindustan Aeronautic Limited (Nasik Division) Employees co-operative Credit - 2 - Society (for short "the Society"). The Society passed a circular resolution on or about 8th December 2000 which states that since the amount of interest received from fixed deposit kept in a nationalised bank is taxable as per the decision of the Supreme Court, the money belonging to the Society should be invested in co-operative banks like Nasik District Central Co-operative Bank, etc. One of the banks in which the money was authorised to be invested by the said circular resolution is Jawahar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. (for short "Jawahar Bank"). An amount of Rs.2.20 crores was invested in a fixed deposit in Jawahar Bank. It appears that Jawahar Bank ran into financial difficulty and consequently it was unable to repay the fixed deposits on maturity. Thereafter a complaint was filed by the Society that the members of the Managing Committee of the Society wrongly invested the amount in Jawahar Bank and thereby they have committed an offence punishable under section 408/409 of the I.P.C. The learned Magistrate initially did not issue process but directed the police to carry out the investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested along with other members of the Managing Committee of the Society. 4. The applicant and other members of the Managing Committee of the Society applied for bail to the - 3 - Sessions Court, Niphad. By his order dated 3rd August 2007, the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad rejected the application for bail. The applicant has thereafter moved the present applicant in this court under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 5. On 24th August 2007, this Court (Coram: V.C. Daga, J.) has granted interim bail to the applicant and the applicant is on bail since then. There is no allegation that the applicant has abused the concession granted to her by this court vide order dated 24th August 2007. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been cooperating with the investigation and has been attending the police station once a week on every Monday as per the order of this Court. Her statement has been recorded by the police and investigation qua her is completed. 6. It is well settled principle of law that a person is not kept in custody during trial by way of punishment. The custody during trial is not intended to be punitive. A person is often kept in custody with a view to ensure his presence when the trial commences; sometimes custody is granted if there is real likelihood of the accused tampering with the investigation or the prosecution evidence. Custody is also granted if the offence is grave and there is likelihood of the accused - 4 - committing any other offence if released on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the investigation in the matter is over. He further stated that the applicant undertakes not to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The applicant has permanent place of residence in Nasik District and is in fact an employee of a public sector undertaking, namely Hindustan Aeronautic Limited. There is no possibility of the applicant jumping bail and/or otherwise not being available for trial when it commences nor is there any apprehension of applicant committing any other offence while on bail. 7. Taking into consideration all these facts, in my view, the applicant is entitled for continuation of the interim bail which was granted vide order dated 24th August 2007. In the circumstances, the order of bail granted by this Court is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)