1appln-1536-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1536/2010 Mr Ajay Ramnarayan Prajapati vs. The State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr A.H.H.Ponda, for the Applicant. Mrs A. S. Pai, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 7TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this regular bail application preferred by the applicant – a bank employee of ICICI Bank for his release on bail during the pendency of the matter for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 420,r/w 34 of I.P.C. 2. Apparently, there are more than 13 accused persons and out of them about 11 accused persons are 2appln-1536-10 released on bail either by the another Bench of this Court or by the appropriate Sessions Court. 3. Complainant Smt Varsha Nalini Mehta opened account with ICICI Bank Ltd. However, without receipt of any cheque book she received a message on her mobile phone that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has been withdrawn from her said account. After revealing that some cheque was signed having her purported signature, she lodged a complaint with the concerned police station. During the investigation several bank employees were interrogated and they are roped in the matter including the present applicant who is employeed as a Sales Executive with ICICI Bank. Apparently, the allegations against the present applicant are that he asked one Jitendra, another employee of ICICI Bank to assist one co-accused by name Sameer for passing of said concerned cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/-. However, Jitendra refused to get said work done. Thereafter, according to the said witness, Jitendra on the next day again he received a telephonic call from the present applicant wherein the applicant informed him that he will get the work done by one Dinesh, another employee of the Bank. On this said 3appln-1536-10 witness Jitendra informed him that he would do whatever he like and not to tell anything more to him. Admittedly, said Dinesh, another employee of the Bank is also an accused and apparently he had done the work and the concerned cheque was honoured. The amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant. Admittedly, said co-accused Dinesh another employee of the Bank has already been granted bail. Considering that the investigation is already over and considering that the present applicant is in custody since November, 2009 and considering that the several co- accused who were placed behind the bar with the present applicant, have already been granted bail, the present application can be allowed with certain conditions. In the result, the following order:- ORDER: (a) Bail Application is allowed. (b) The applicant arrested in C.R. No. 210/2009 with Bhayandar Police Station, shall be released on bail on executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount. 4appln-1536-10 © On availing the bail the applicant shall attend concerned police station as and when required by the police. (d) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (e) Application is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J)