REVANSIDHA RAMCHANDRA JEURGI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is apprehending arrest in CR No.45/09 registered with Akalkot South police station for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 417, 418 read with section 34 of IPC. The auditor noticed misappropriation of funds by making disbursement under a scheme known as Swaranjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana during the period commencing from 19.3.2000 to 28.12.07. According to the prosecution the present applicant was working as an extension office. During the aforesaid period and hence has been found to be involved in the commission of crime. The applicant has emphatically stated that he has worked as extension officer only for a period of 11 days and that too was holding an additional charge, his substantive post being that of an extension officer statistical. During the period the applicant has worked as extension officer only one disbursement has taken place on 19.12.07. As there was a confusion as to for what period did the applicant work as extension officer by an order dated 20.7.09 the prosecution was directed to ascertain the correct position in regard to the time during which the applicant has worked as extension officer. The learned additional public prosecutor has produced on record the order dated 18.12.07 passed by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Akkalkot which shows that the applicant had handed over the charge of his earlier post on 17.12.2007 and had joined the post of extension officer on 18.12.07. Learned APP has candidly submitted that the period mentioned in para 5 of the reply affidavit is incorrect and it is stated that the applicant has worked as extension officer from 18.12.07 to 24.6.08. Thus, it is clear that the applicant has no concern with the sanction of the amount on 10.12.07. The applicant has only sanctioned one claim on 19.12.07 i.e. On the very next day after his taking over the additional charge. In this fact situation prima facie it does not appear that the applicant would have committed the offence in connivance with other accused. In that view of the matter application deserves to be granted. Being a government employee there are no chances of the applicant running away from justice. Having regard to totality of facts and circumstances I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. In the result I pass the following order: