Heard.

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

3. By the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant-one of the accused arrested in connection with Crime No.197/2012 of Pandharkavda Police Station for offence under Sections 408, 409 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, has prayed for exercising inherent powers of this Court for quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.03.2012 cancelling the bail granted to him vide order dated 11.11.2012 and order dated 01.06.2013 passed by the Court of Sessions, Kelapur upholding the said cancellation by rejection of an application in revision preferred by the said applicant to the Court of Session challenging said order of cancellation passed by trial Court.

4. The crime in question was registered upon the first information lodged by one Aniruddha Adhav on the allegation of the applicant along with the other accused having misappropriated an amount of about Rs.20 lacs entrusted to him in his capacity as Project Officer. Considering the nature of controversy involved, it will be wholly unnecessary to state in detail about the matters in said first information report and the crime, except that in short it is the allegation in the complaint that work under Thakkar Bappa Adivasi Sudhar Scheme of executing construction work of Nalli and the road, for an amount of Rs.20 lacs or thereabout was allotted to one Mahatma Fule Gramin Bahujan Vikas Sanstha. During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested on 11.11.2012 and was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. Significantly enough no police custody remand was then sought of the applicant for the purposes of investigation. Resultantly by order passed on Sunday i.e. on 11.11.2012, the applicant was ordered to be released on bail with conditions amongst other, a condition no.3 to attend the Police Station Pandharkavda on every Sunday.

5. The prosecution on 21.02.2013 moved an application with the contention of the applicant having failed to comply with condition of the attendance imposed and prayed for cancellation of the bail. The applicant resisted the said application by filing reply amongst other contending that his Advocate having failed to inform him about the condition of the attendance imposed, he did not attend Pandharkavda Police station. Secondly it was contended that prior to making an application for cancellation on 19.02.2013, ASI Ghuge of Pandharkavda Police Station called the applicant at the Crime Branch by informing him that he has failed to attend. It is the case of the applicant that he promptly attended the said Crime Branch on 23rd and 24th February, 2013 and cooperated for investigation and his statement was recorded. It is also his contention that application for cancellation fails to make out any case of any compelling necessity of keeping the applicant in custody as the said application amongst other also discloses that the other co-accused was arrested during the course of the investigation and his statement was recorded and on receiving a clue, the Police had been to the Bank and verified the amount of Rs.20 lacs allegedly misappropriated was withdrawn from the Bank by the said co-accused and not by the applicant.

6. Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the matter stated in reply undoubtfully clarifies that there was no intentional act on part of applicant in not complying the condition imposed by the Court, but the default had occurred due to the reason of the applicant being not informed about the said condition. The learned counsel contended that moment the applicant learnt about such a condition being levied by the Court, he not only attended the Crime Branch but thereafter even during the pendency of the application for cancellation of bail, he attended Police Station as ordered. The learned counsel contended that the applicant is in service and is working as a Special