1 CRI.APP.NO.2200/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2200 OF 2009. Barikrao Motiram Pawar ...Applicant. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra & another. ...Respondents. ... Mr.A.M.Gaikwad, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.S.B.Wadmare, APP for the respondents. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 6th July, 2009. COURT'S ORDER: 1. The applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 87/2009 registered on 30th of May, 2009 at Dindrud Police Station, Dist.Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case can be narratred as under: . The applicant made a phone call to the 2 CRI.APP.NO.2200/2009. complainant who worked as Manager in Beed District Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Wadwani, on 20th May, 2009 and informed the Manager that he had sent a person by name Ashok with two cheques for encashment and he should oblige him. The complainant said that he knew the applicant since prior to that day as an account holder of the bank and earlier to the incident, he had withdrawn certain amounts. The cheques were drawn on account of certain Government Scheme. The amounts were accordingly withdrawn by the person by name Ashok and then on the same day, witness Haribhau stated, the applicant handed over to him cash amount of Rs.7,20,000/- (Rs.Seven lakhs Twenty thousand only) and asked him to deliver the amount to other accused by name Rohidas. 3. After the incident of 20th May, 2009 for few days nothing happened. But on 30th May, 2009 certain newspaper published a news item that certain amount was withdrawn from the bank accounts unauthorisedly by unknown persons etc. After reading the newspaper report, the complainant made a phone call to the applicant and asked him about the news item. The applicant replied to the complainant that he had nothing to do with the withdrawal of the amount and he said that the amount was withdrawn by anonymous forgers. 3 CRI.APP.NO.2200/2009. 4. Mr.Gaikwad, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant asserted that had the applicant been involved in this case, he would not have given the information about embezzlement of the amount to the newspaper. According to the news item, it is the case of the applicant that on 25th May, 2009, he made inquiry with the complainant Bank Manager about the withdrawal of the amount and when he realised that the cheques were passed in breach of normal practice of the bank, he informed this fact to the newspaper. What is surprising in this story is that the applicant did not lodge a complaint about this to police. The clinching material against the applicant is the statement of witness Haribhau. The applicant does not deserve anticipatory bail. The application stands rejected. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp.