BHIMRAO BHAU JAVIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court, Sangli, came to be rejected on 12-12-1997 and, therefore, this application has been filed.

(2.) The petitioner had been serving as Gramsevak and at the relevant time he was attached to Grampanchayat of village Atpadi. Record of the said Grampanchayat was inspected from 17-9-1997 to 22-10-1997 by the Extension Officer, Shri P.B. Dabir. During that inspection, it was found that an amount of Rs.78,740/- has been misappropriated by the petitioner and, therefore, complaint came to be filed on 6-12-1997 in Atpadi Police Station. On the basis of the said complaint offence has been registered. Apprehending his arrest in connection with that offence petitioner has applied for grant of anticipatory bail.

(3.) I have a heard Shri Ingwale for the petitioner and Shri Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for the respondent - State. Copy of the FIR lodged on 6-12-1997 would go to show that the amount deposited in the Bank, but was not entered in the cash book. Further, he withdrew the same and spent without showing and accounting for the same and that is how misappropriation has been suggested. Shri Ingwale drew my attention to the FIR wherein it is stated that all the record of the said Grampanchayat has been produced by Extension officer in the Police Station and having regard to the nature of offence, the same rests upon documentary evidence. As such custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary as the petitioner has been serving in the Grampanchayat since last 25 years without any blemish. However, on behalf of the Respondent - State, it is stated that the investigating officer requires custody of the petitioner to find out in what way the petitioner has spent the misappropriated amount. Merely because, all documents are produced in the police station and the case is dependent upon the documents, it cannot be said that the petitioner will be entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. It is necessary for the investigating officer to find out in what way the amounts are utilised by the petitioner and having regard to the amount misappropriated viz. Rs. 78,000/- and odd and the manner in which amounts have been withdrawn from the bank and spent, I find that this is not a case where anticipatory bail should be granted. Accordingly, application is rejected. In case petitioner surrenders and applies for bail, that application shall be decided expeditiously.