DHARNIDHAR KAMLASHANKAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties. Indeed, the offence under section 467 and 420, amongst the other offences registered against the Applicants, are serious offences. However, I find substance in the submission canvassed on behalf of the Applicants that the entire record of the Society is in the custody of the police. In fact, Official Liquidator was appointed in respect of the Society, of which the Applicants were only Committee Members. The investigating agency has availed of custodial interrogation of the Applicants. The fact that co-accused have not been arrested so far cannot be the basis to deny bail to the present Applicants, who are in custody for over about 65 days. The Applicants, therefore, deserve to be released on bail, but on strict conditions, as the prosecution apprehends that if the Applicants are enlarged on bail, they may not be available for trial. Accordingly, this application succeeds on the following terms.

(2.) APPLICATION disposed of on the above terms.