Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
S.G. MEHARE, J.
Sheela Dinkar Pawar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1166 of 2022
Decided On : 13-09-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Misappropriation - Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, Sections 408, 409, 420 r/w Section 34 - Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, Section 140(5) and (6)
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a former Village Sarpanch, sought anticipatory bail for misappropriation of funds. The lower court had granted bail on the condition to deposit a specific amount, which the applicant failed to comply with, leading to the rejection of her request for an extension. The applicant then approached the higher court for anticipatory bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court's imposition of the condition to deposit the money was inhumane and against the principles laid down by higher courts. It also ruled that the police cannot seek custody of the applicant to recover the alleged misappropriated amount when action under section 140(5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act is initiated. The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with additional conditions.
Issues: 1. Whether the lower court's imposition of the condition to deposit the money was justified. 2. Whether the police can seek custody of the applicant to recover the alleged misappropriated amount when action under section 140(5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act is initiated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lower court's imposition of the condition to deposit the money was inhumane and against the principles laid down by higher courts. It also ruled that the police cannot seek custody of the applicant to recover the alleged misappropriated amount when action under section 140(5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act is initiated.
Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, and interim protection granted to the applicant was confirmed with additional conditions.
ORDER :
1. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest. Hence she is seeking anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences registered under sections 408, 409, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.
3. The applicant was the Village Sarpanch from 2015-2016 to 2018-2019 of Village Nipani Wadgaon, Taluka Shrirampur. The auditor did an audit of the accounts of the village panchayat. The auditor found that an amount of Rs. 26,48,115/- was misappropriated by the present applicant and the then Gramsevak. The Assistant Accounts Officer, Legal Fund, Audit Department, Ahmednagar, placed a special report to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, pointing out the misappropriation under different heads. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer issued the show cause notice under Section 140 (5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act to the applicant on various dates and 30.06.2022. He held the present applicant responsible for misappropriating Rs. 10,40,185/-. The final notice dated 23.06.2022 was served upon the applicant calling upon her to deposit the misappropriated money. In response, she denied the audit report and her responsibility. She deposited Rs. 1,91,191/- under protest. However, she did not challenge the order of the Chief Executive Officer directing her to pay the above amount before the District Court to modify or set it aside as provided under Section 140 (6) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. Thereafter, the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur, lodged the F.I.R. against her. Police Station Shrirampur has registered the crime for the above offences.
4. The applicant approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, for anticipatory bail vide Criminal Bail Application No. 196 of 2022. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the application on a condition to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,40,185/- within seven days before the Court under protest with a further condition that if the applicant breaches any condition, the bail would be cancelled automatically. The applicant could not comply with the directions of depositing the amount within a given time. Therefore, she moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge to extend the time to deposit the money. However, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the application on 11.08.2022. Hence, the applicant approached this Court for anticipatory bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that there is a catena of the judgments of the High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court that imposing such condition of depositing the money while granting the bail is an inhumane approach and amounts to a denial of the bail. He has referred to the following cases:
(2) Avinash Arora and Others vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh, AIR 2000 SC 3563(1)
Shyam Singh vs. State, 2005 DGLS (SC) 491
(4) Munish Bhasin and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2009 SC 2072
(5) Sumit Mehta vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 15 SCC 570
(6) Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 22
(7) Kunal Kumar Tiwari Alias Kunal Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2018) 16 SCC 74
(8) Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2020 and SLP (Crl) No. 3420 of 2020
(9) Kaleem alias Kaleem Pasha vs. State by Central Police Station, Banglore, 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal) 524 : 2003 Cri L.J. 353
(10) Vipin Mehra and Another vs. State, 2003 V.A.D. Delhi 501
(11) Makhan Kant Sharma vs. Union of India, 2011 (4) All. L.J. 80
(12) Amaldoss and Others vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Patteeswaram Police Station, Thanjavur, 2015 (1) MLJ (Criminal) 471
(13) Bharatkumar Madanbhai Chikani vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 5821 of 2015, decided by this Court on 30.10
Imposing inhumane conditions for granting bail amounts to refusal of bail, and the police cannot seek custody of the accused to recover alleged misappropriated amounts when action under the relevant ....
Anticipatory bail granted with conditions for investigation despite misappropriation allegations.
The court emphasized the need for concrete facts to support apprehension of arrest in deciding anticipatory bail applications.
Anticipatory bail is generally not granted in cases involving the misappropriation of public funds or property where custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation and the recovery ....
The execution of process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against an applicant may render them not entitled to anticipatory bail, but the court may consider their bail application expeditiously based ....
The court denies anticipatory bail to the applicant due to the execution of process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. However, it provides an opportunity for the applicant to apply for bail after surre....
Anticipatory bail is not an absolute right, especially in economic offences, where the court must balance personal liberty against the need for effective investigation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
