Bombay High CourtABA/813/2016allowed

Ku. Rupali D/O. Jankiram Muley v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, City Police Station Khamgaon Tah. Khamgaon Buldan

2017-06-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 aba813.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 813 OF 2016 (KU RUPALI JANKIRAM MULEY...VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. CITY POLICE STATION, KHAMGAON, DIST. BULDANA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Smt. Anjali A. Bhide, Advocate for Applicant. Shri Neeraj Patil, A.P.P. for Non-applicant.

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JUNE 19, 2017.

Heard.

The applicant, apprehending arrest in crime registered against her and another accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has sought pre-arrest bail. According to the Investigating Agency, both the accused who were posted by ADD Technologies (I) Ltd. to collect amount from the customers of MSEDCL and to deposit that amount in the account of MSEDCL in the bank on the next day, failed to discharge the duty and in a calculated manner deposited the amount in the account of MSEDCL after few days because of which M/s. ADD Technologies (I) Ltd. is required to pay an amount of Rs.5,91,152/- towards interest to MSEDCL as per the agreement. It is alleged that the ADD Technologies (I) Ltd. is put to loss because of the misappropriation of the amount by the accused.

2 aba813.16 The applicant is granted interim protection by this Court by the order passed on 14th December, 2016. It is not the complaint of the Investigating Agency that the applicant has misused the protection granted by this Court or has not co-operated with the Investigating Agency. The non-applicant has not been able to point out that custody of the applicant is required for further investigation.

Considering the facts of the case, nature of accusations against the applicant and that the applicant is a woman aged about 23 years and not involved in any other crime/ offence, I am of the view that the interim order granted on 14th December, 2016 has to be confirmed. In the event of arrest in Crime No.207 of 2016, registered by the non-applicant, the applicant be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond for Rs. Twenty Thousand and on furnishing one solvent surety in the like amount. The application is allowed accordingly.

JUDGE RRaut..