StateMs. S v. Salunke
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:3523 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1160 OF 2023Ravindra Jagannath LodhVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And AnotherWITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1497 OF 2023 Vishwanath Dnyaneshwar Raut VERSUSThe State Of MaharashtraMr. S. S. Jadhavar, Advocate for ApplicantMr. B. A. Shinde, APP for Respondent/StateMs. S. V. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant in ABA No. 1497/2023CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 06th March, 2025PER COURT :-1.This motion is moved for speaking to minutes of order dated06.02.2025. Though, on 06.02.2025, Anticipatory Bail Application No.1160/2023 is disposed of, inadvertently, Anticipatory Bail Application No.1497/2023 is wrongly mentioned in title clause.2.This being inadvertent error. Necessary corrections be carriedout and corrected order be uploaded.(R. M. JOSHI, J.)bsj920-ABA-1160-2023-f-ii-spm.odt1 of 6 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // (This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes of order dated 06.03.2025)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1160 OF 2023Ravindra Jagannath LodhVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And AnotherMr. S. S. Jadhavar, Advocate for ApplicantMr. B. A. Shinde, APP for Respondent/StateCORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 06th February, 2025PER COURT :-1.Applicant is a government servant, Assistant Account Officer,Panchayat Samiti, Osmanabad. He apprehends arrest in connection withCrime No. 0189 of 2023 registered with Anandnagar Police Station, Dist.Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Section 420, 409 r/w 34of Indian Penal Code.2.First Information Report is lodged by Assistant AdministrativeOfficer, Panchayat Samiti, Osmanabad alleging that in the work of Sock-Pits at villages Khed, Medshinga, Upala, Dhoki and Bembli, there wasmisappropriation committed by Block Development Officer (BDO),Assistant Account Officer (present applicant) and Clerk cum Data EntryOperator to the tune of Rs. 1,12,28,936/-. The First Information Reportreveals that these three accused persons in collusion with each otherhave misappropriated the said amount by showing false record in respect920-ABA-1160-2023-f-ii-spm.odt2 of 6 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // of the work allegedly done. There is further averment in the FirstInformation Report that an enquiry was done into the said allegation andthe liability of the amount of misappropriation is also fixed upon thesepersons independently. Such fixation of liability was done on 26.09.2022.3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is agovernment servant and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court hasappeared before the Investigating Officer. It is his submission that partamount has been paid by the applicant from the liability fixed againsthim in the said enquiry. It is his contention that the BDO who wasresponsible for the preparation of the record has been grantedanticipatory bail and hence the applicant also deserves bail. He claimsthat applicant is not likely to absconded.4.Learned APP opposed the application by pointing out that theapplicant is prone to commission of such crime and in support thereof hehas drawn attention of the Court to the previous crime registered againsthim. It is his submission that the public money is misappropriated insuch manner. It is his further submission that the appearance of theapplicant under the protection of interim order of this Court does notenable the Investigating Agency to carry out appropriate custodialinterrogation. It is his submission that having regard to the nature ofoffence and since huge public money is involved therein, it is absolutely920-ABA-1160-2023-f-ii-spm.odt3 of 6 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // necessary that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is done inorder to ascertain the involvement of others including BDO in this crime.It is his submission that merely because BDO granted bail by SessionsCourt that ipso facto does not mean to the grant of pre-arrest bail to theapplicant herein.5.Perusal of the First Information Report indicates that not onlythere is allegation against the applicant of misappropriation, but duringenquiry all concerns were found to have committed misappropriation andliability is also fixed against BDO, present applicant and co-accused. Thesaid liability has been fixed in September, 2022. Admittedly, there is nochallenge made by present applicant to the said findings. Thus, there isreason to believe that there is involvement of the present applicant inthis crime and that public money has been misappropriated.6.It is pertinent to note that the applicant is the one withoutwhose digital signature, no money can be misappropriated. Though, nowit is sought to be argued on behalf of the applicant that the co-accusedhas misused the said digital signature, this Court does not find substancetherein, in view of specific directions issued by the State Governmentwith regard to the manner in which digital signature is to be used by theconcerned person. It is also informed in no uncertain terms to all theconcerned that the secrecy of the password and user name is absolutely920-ABA-1160-2023-f-ii-spm.odt4 of 6 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // essential to be maintained and even in case of use of the password bysomeone else, the concern government servant was to be heldresponsible there for. In this case, failure on the part of the applicant tochallenge the findings about fixing liability of the misappropriatedamount on whom coupled with the fact that the digital signature of theapplicant was used for the misappropriation, there is prima facieevidence showing his involvement in this crime.7.There is often grievance made by the public at large that thegovernment officers used corrupt practices and misappropriate the publicmoney. Once, prima facie, evidence is found against the applicantshowing his involvement in the crime, the Investigating Agency isjustified in seeking custodial interrogation without protection of interimorder of this Court in order to ascertain all culprits in the crime. ThisCourt also finds substance in the contention of the learned APP thatmerely because BDO has been granted bail by the Sessions Court andthat there is no cancellation of the said bail is sought, that will not heldthe applicant to get pre-arrest bail as his involvement is apparent in thiscrime. Apart from this, admittedly, there is another crime registeredagainst him bearing Crime No. 369 of 2022 prior to the registration ofpresent First Information Report. This shows that applicant is prone ofcommitting crime which involves embezzlement of public money to thehuge extent. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the920-ABA-1160-2023-f-ii-spm.odt5 of 6 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // applicant. Hence, application stands dismissed.8.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks continuation of theinterim order for the period of 4 weeks. Learned APP opposed the saidcontention by pointing out that the interim relief was obtained bysuppressing material fact that there was already a previous crimeregistered against applicant which is similar in nature. Apart from this, itis submitted that the said order was passed on prima facie considerationof the case and on the statement made across the bar by the learnedcounsel for the applicant.9.Ordinarily, this Court would have continue the interim reliefhowever, here in this case, this Court finds substance in the contention ofthe learned APP that the interim order was obtained by suppressingmaterial fact of previous crime of similar nature being registered againsthim. In such circumstances, since the interim relief was obtained bysuppression of the fact that applicant is not entitled to seek continuationthereof. For this reason, the request of continuation of interim reliefstands rejected.(R. M. JOSHI, J.)bsj920-ABA-1160-2023-f-ii-spm.odt6 of 6