The present application is filed seeking to release the applicant on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with the complaint being C.R.No.I-116 of 2011 registered with Thashra Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 420 and 114 of IPC.
Heard learned advocate, Mr.Murli N. Devnani for the applicant and learned APP, Mr.L.B.Dabhi for the State.
It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant was working as a Cashier-cum-Clerk since 1998 and he resigned with effect from 30-4-2002. It is further submitted that the applicant has never taken an advance, however, Assessment Officer has issued a notice stating that applicant has taken an advance of Rs.1,50,000/- from the bank and outstanding amount with interest came to Rs.3,60,140/-. It is further submitted that the form filled up by the applicant for settling his earlier case of Negotiable Instruments Act was misused by the society. It is further submitted that is not directly or indirectly involved in the offence in question but has been falsely involved. It is further submitted that other accused persons, who were named in the complaint have been released on bail and hence, applicant may also be released on bail.
It appears that the applicant was working as a Cashier-cum-Accountant and it is found that he is prima facie involved in committing the crime. It appears that one Daneshkumar with the help of present applicant forged the documents to show that Daneshkumar deposited Rs.2.00 lakhs in fixed deposit and thus Daneshkumar misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,73,675/-. It also appears that the present applicant received loan of Rs.9,28,584/- under different heads and did not repay the same and thereby caused misappropriation of huge sums of money. As it prima facie appears that present applicant is involved in the offence in question, this Court would not like to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, this application is not required to be entertained.
In view of the above, this application is rejected. Rule is discharged.
The observations made by this Court in this order being made for the purpose of deciding this application may not prejudice the parties in trial.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan Top