1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2723 OF 2010 Subhash S/o.Govindrao Phulari and others 3 APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2724 OF 2010 Shankar S/o.Devrao Chavan APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Ganesh Gadhe, learned counsel for applicants in both applications. Mr.P.P.More, learned APP for State in both applications. CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 27/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By these applications, office bearers of Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank and its recovery officers have approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.15/2010, registered in Mandavi Police 2 Station, Tq.Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. 2. When initially the application was moved on 16/07/2010, interim protection was granted to these applicants. 3. Heard learned counsel for applicants in both the applications, learned APP for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 4. It appears that the said crime came to be registered on the complaint of one Narayan Datta Suklewad, the Senior Inspector working in the Central Co-operative Bank at Kinwat, Tal.Kinwat. Admittedly, at the material time, first applicant in the first application was working in the said bank, at the same branch as Manager of the Bank. The second applicant was working as In- charge Manager in the said Bank for some period, the third applicant was working as a cashier while the fourth applicant was working as a clerk in the said bank. The applicant in the second application was working as a Recovery Officer in the said bank. It is alleged in the said complaint that during the audit period for the year 2007-08 to 3 2008-09, the team of the auditors have noticed that these applicants have mis-appropriated an amount in the sum of Rs.1,09,896/- jointly and also individually misappropriated certain funds. Alongwith the audit report, photo copies of about 456 documents were annexed. 5. It is contended across the bar on behalf of applicants in both the applications that these applicants have not misused the liberty granted to them during the pendancy of the application before the Lower Court as well as for some time before this Court. All the documents are in the custody of Investigation Officer and as such there are no chances that these applicants may tamper with those documents, and as their custodial interrogation is un-warranted, they be released on bail. 6. One scheme was introduced by the State Government to provide subsidy to the affected agriculturists, whose growing cotton crop was damaged, wherein certain amount of subsidy was deposited in the Bank by the Central Government, which is to be utilized and distributed in the affected agriculturists. The audit report discloses that these officers by taking benefit of their status and post, opened 4 the accounts in the name of dead persons and withdrawn the amount of subsidy. Further 168 documents revealed during the audit, which shows that the initial amount on the withdrawal slip was increased at the hands of these applicants. It is also noticed that amount of subsidy was withdrawn by these persons in the name of fake persons. During the audit, it also revealed that withdrawal slips are having thumb impression of those persons, when their specimen signatures are available in the bank. In this way and manner, these applicants have jointly mis-appropriated certain amounts collectively and the applicant Manager alongwith his associates have prepared certain documents to mis-appropriate this amount, and for that, their custodial interrogation is must. Likewise the report submitted by the Investigation Officer before the Lower Court indicates that as these applicants are on pre-arrest bail during the pendancy, they used to threaten the agriculturists, to whom part of the loan was distributed, but in the documents, loan amount was increased and they were pressurized not to give the statements before the IO. It clearly indicates that even though the applicants are enjoying the liberty of pre-arrest bail during the pendancy of these applications, this liberty was misused by the applicants , hence their 5 custodial interrogation is must. In view of this, both the applications stand rejected. Interim protection, earlier granted, stands vacated. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri-appl-2723-10