Cri.B.A. No. 383/2022­Ex.1 Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No. 383/2022

Devidas Yashwant Gavit .. Applicant / Accused.

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra

Through Police Inspector, Barhe Police Station, Barhe, Surgana. (Cr. No.I 03/2022) .. Prosecution

Order below Exh.1.

1.This application has been filed by the applicant/accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in the aforesaid Crime registered at Barhe Police Station, for the offence punishable under section 409 of the IPC.

Accordingly, the notice was issued to the opponent.

2.According to the case of Prosecution, the FIR was lodged by the complainant Manoj Balkrishna Rule, who is working as Asstt. Superintendent, Post Office, Nashik City, Nashik, alleging therein that the applicant was working as an Assistant Superintendent at Barhe Post Office, Tal. Surgana. On 06.05.2014, one Murlidhar B. Gaikwad had deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/­ in the Post Office.

The applicant had made entry in the pass­book to that effect.

Murlidhar visited the Post­Office for withdrawal of the amount. At that time, the applicant gave Rs.9,000/­ to him. He didn’t make counter entries in the books of Accounts kept in the Post Office. Thus,
he misappropriated the amount given by Mr. Murlidhar. The said fact came to the notice of the Officials of the Post. The Departmental enquiry was initiated against him. In pursuance of which, the applicant was terminated from the service in the year 2018. The period of alleged misappropriation was from 06.05.2014 to 30.06.2015.

Based on his report, the offence came to be registered against the applicant and he is apprehending his arrest at the hands of police.

3.The learned counsel Mr. A.J.Bhide appearing for the applicant/accused has argued that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence. He is already terminated from service.

The period of misappropriation is 2014­2015 and the offence is registered in the year 2022. Further the case is based on documentary evidence so custodial interrogation is not warranted. Under such circumstances, applicant prays for relief. He is ready to cooperate with the investigation.

4.The Investigating Officer has filed his reply at Exh.7 and strongly opposed the application stating that the offence is serious in nature and the presence of applicant is required for detail investigation such as to find out how many persons have been cheated by the applicant and the amount of misappropriation. If protection is granted to the applicant, it may hamper investigation.

Hence, prayed for rejection of the application.

The Ld. APP Mrs. Reshma Jadhav has submitted her arguments in line with the say filed by the investigating Officer vide Exh.8 and prayed for rejection of the application.

5.After hearing both the sides, it appears that the nature of offence is extremely serious. The allegations is that applicant has misappropriated the amount of Rs.20,000/­ which was deposited by one of the depositors. He has not made entry to that effect in the books of accounts. Though the amount was recovered but his custody is required to find out in how many cases, he had misappropriated the amount which has ultimately caused serious financial loss to the innocent depositors, who else are involved with him actively etc. The reasons for custodial interrogation is justified. Hence, I am not inclined to grant relief to applicant. Hence, following order.

O r d e r
1. Application stands rejected.

Digitally signed NAIR by NAIR SANDHYA SANDHYA SUNIL Date: SUNIL 2022.03.28 10:57:00 -0600
( Smt. S.S. Nair ) ate : 25.03.2022. Addl. Sessions Judge ­4, Nashik.