1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 3419/2009 ( Bhaurao Sampatrao Wankhade .vs. State of Mah. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. S.M. Bhangde, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. K.S. Joshi, APP for Respondent. CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 7, 2009 Heard. By the present application, the applicant/accused arrested on 23.9.2009 and since then in custody in connection with Crime No. 206/2009 registered with Police Station Ramdaspeth, Akola for commission of offence under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC , has prayed for bail. The said offence has been registered upon the report of Official Auditor dated 22.9.2009 against the applicant and three more accused for commission of misappropriation of amount of Rs.10,67,113/- by collecting the said amount from the members of the society and depositors and having misappropriated the same and also having effected the alterations in the records of the society for said purpose. The allegations against the applicant who was the Chairman of the society in question are prima facie 2 confined to the extent of himself having collected various amounts from 25 persons as mentioned in a table given in the FIR and totalling to amount of Rs.7,38,853/- and having passed the receipts for the same in spite of himself being not authorized to collect the same. The FIR amongst other further reveals that such an amount and interest amount of Rs.2,90,786/- thereon being recoverable from the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that hardly any sanctity can be given to the matters stated in the FIR inasmuch as the same is not based upon any complaint made by any of the persons mentioned in the said FIR about the applicant having received such amount from them. He has further urged that beyond the matters stated in the FIR and the report of Auditor, the prosecution has hardly collected any material to reveal that in fact the applicant has collected such money from such persons and/or the said persons having any grievance of any nature against the applicant for the same. The learned counsel has further urged that even accepting the matters as stated in the FIR, still documentary evidence regarding alleged misappropriation being already seized by the prosecution, hardly there would be any reason for denying bail to the applicant who has remained in custody for prolong period and even the offences alleged against him are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He has urged that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation and will abide with any condition as would be imposed by the Court and as such he may be released on bail as grant of the same is unlikely to hamper the 3 progress of investigation and/or there being bleak possibility of prosecution evidence getting tampered. The learned APP has opposed the prayer made on the count of the accusations levelled being of serious nature and huge amount of the Co-operative Society being misappropriated. She has further urged that the applicant is said to have purchased a flat with the help of misappropriated amount. She has further urged that the applicant having passed the receipts in the name of the society and the said persons are approaching the society and the society would be liable to pay such an amount and as such unless the applicant comes forward and deposit certain money, his prayer for bail should not be considered. Perused the case diary and receipts. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the parties and having regard to the fact that the alleged misappropriation having taken place during the period from April 2005 to April 2006 and report about the same being filed on 10.8.2009 and even after a passage of period of about 3 ½ months, prima facie no much progress being seen to have been made by the investigating agency by collecting the material establishing direct nexus of the applicant with the amounts said to have been collected by him, i.e. prima facie no pains have been taken to collect any cogent material for establishing that relevant receipts bears the signature of the applicant and/or even to record the statements of 25 persons regarding the relevant aspect, and considering the fact that much relevant evidence about the alleged crime being already in possession of 4 the I.O. , and even though the learned APP has alleged that the applicant is said to have purchased a flat with the help of misappropriated amount, hardly any evidence regarding the same being collected, discretion deserves to be exercised in favour of granting bail by imposing certain strict conditions. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a PR bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties in like amount and subject to further conditions that the applicant (i) shall attend Investigating Officer everyday in between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for first 15 days and thereafter every alternate days for next two weeks within the said timings and thereafter once in a week until filing of a charge sheet , (ii) shall stay at the address mentioned in the application and shall not change the same without prior permission of the Court, (iii) shall not tamper the prosecution evidence so far collected and (iv) shall not commit any offence while being on bail granted vide this order. Hamdast allowed. It is further expressly recorded that the observations made in the aforesaid order being made strictly for the purposes of deciding the prayer for bail, nothing therein should be construed as an opinion expressed by this Court upon the merits of the matter. In view of disposal of main application, Criminal APPP No. 314 of 2009 also stands disposed of. JUDGE halwai