(1) CRI.APP. 3679.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3679 OF 2010 1. Ajaj S/o Bashir Shaikh, Age : 35 years, Occu.: Service, Serving as Village Development Officer, Tandulwadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad R/o. Tandulwadi, Tq. Kalamb Dist. Osmanabad 2. Amol S/o Bharat Kadam, Age : 22 years, Occu.: Agri., Holding the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Office, R/o Tandalwadi, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Kalamb, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad (Copy to be served through Public Prosecutor, High Court Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent ... Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 19TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Application is for anticipatory bail. 2. The applicant no.1 is the Village (2) CRI.APP. 3679.2010 Development Officer attached to Tandulwadi, (Tq. Kalamb) and the applicant no.2 is Sarpanch of the said village. A scheme called “Mahatma Gandhi Gram Rojgar Hami Yojna” was made operational. It is alleged that the applicants withdrew certain amounts under the pretext that it was required for the purpose of implementation of the scheme. The main intention of the scheme was to provide daily wages to the workers in rural area and to give them helping hand to earn their livelihood. The audit inspection reveals that an amount of Rs.3,28,860/- was withdrawn whereas, the actual expenditure was only of Rs.1,58,550/-. The auditor noticed that there were deficiencies such as bogus entries were made in the work measurement register, false signatures were made for withdrawal of the amounts from the Post department, the technical verification of the work done was not performed, so on and so forth. 3. The applicants submit that they were not concerned with the disbursement of the amount and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence they seek protection from the apprehended (3) CRI.APP. 3679.2010 arrest as contemplated under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bondar for the applicantS and learned APP Mr. Borade for the State. 5. Mr. Bondar invites my attention to certain observations rendered by Co-ordinate Bench in context of Criminal Application no. 2023 of 2010, 2034 of 2010 and 2139 of 2010. It is difficult to countenance the argument that in view of such observations, the applicants are entitled to seek liberty. The learned Single Judge observed that the Gramsevak and Sarpanch were required to provide the assistance in carrying the work under the scheme. He also observed that controlling authorities like District Collector, the Block Development Officer concerned were rather more responsible. These are incidental observations rendered in the context of the peculiar facts and circumstances and probably without having regard to the role played by the present applicants as the persons who were having domain over the cash amount required for implementation of the scheme. It is true that the (4) CRI.APP. 3679.2010 learned Single Judge observed that without the blessings of the Collector, Chief Executive Officer and the Block Development Officer the bills of the said work could not have been sanctioned. These observations do not, in fact, are sufficient to blame the supervisory authorities as they are rendered per- incuriam. 6. Considering the scheme itself, it appears that the applicants were duty bound to implement the scheme and were under the obligation to follow the directions as per the requirement. The text of the scheme (Exh. P to the Application) shows that the Gramsevak was supposed to distribute the available funds to the labour. He was under the obligation to submit the report for the audit. He was required to maintain the accounts. Thus, the applicant no.1 was having actual domain over the amounts required to be disbursed. It prima facie appears, therefore, that he is responsible for the short payment or bogus payments. 7. Considering these aspects, the applicant no.1 is not entitled to seek the benefit of (5) CRI.APP. 3679.2010 discretionary relief available under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the applicant no.2 is entitled to such a relief in view of the nature of his duties. 8. In the result, the Application is partly allowed. The applicant no.2-Amol is directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, if he would furnish bail bonds in sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) before the Arresting Officer and on condition that he will attend the concerned Police Station on each Tuesday and Saturday between 10.00 am. to 2.00 pm. for four(4) consecutive weeks hereafter and will co-operate with the Investigating Officer during course of investigation. His failure to attend the Police Station will entail recalling of the order of anticipatory bail. Application to the extent of applicant no.1-Ajaj stands dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp