{1}

ABA 321.21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 321 OF 2021

SUNIL S/O. SHANKAR SHELKE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

…

Mr. K.N. Shermale, Advocate for the applicant,

Mr. S.D. Ghayal, APP for the respondent.

CORAM : V.G. BISHT, J.

ORDER RESERVED ON : 11^th August.2021.

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 20^th August, 2021.

PER COURT:

1]

This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. preferred

by the applicant seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime

No.0048 of 2021, registered with Police Station, Ghargaon, Dist.

Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420.409 r/w. 34

of IPC.

2]

The informant is the Block Development Officer of

Panchayat Samiti, Sangamner. On 25.1.2020, one Anil Phatangare made

a complaint in respect of certain irregularities in respect of the affairs of

the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, the Block Development Officer,

appointed a 3 member committee, who conducted an enquiry and found

that the present applicant, who was the then Gram Sevak, and co-

accused Prashant Gavram Phatangare are responsible for the financial

irregularities and misappropriation of funds of the Gram Panchayat

during the period 2014-15 to 2017-18. Pursuant to the notice, the

{2}

ABA 321.21.odt

present applicant filed his detailed reply. Pursuant to the explanation

offered by the applicant, the BDO, asked the informant to verify the

record (Nasti) and accordingly, the informant submitted his Verification

Report to the Block Development Officer on 10.11.2020. It is alleged

that the present applicant and said accused had not taken permission of

the Gram Sabha and without sanction of authority during 2014-15 to

2017-18, the co-accused had drawn a cheque in his name in the sum of

Rs. 16,13,720/-, whereas, the present applicant had drawn a cheque in

the sum of Rs. 4,66,626/-. Similarly, it was also alleged that the present

applicant was responsible for misappropriation of 50% of the amount of

Rs. 8,83,131/- i.e. Rs. 4,41,156/-. Thus, in all the present applicant had

committed misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 9,81,091.50/-.

3]

Mr. Shermale, learned counsel for the aplicant submits that

pursuant to the notice, the applicant submitted his detailed explanation

in respect of the accusations raised against him by the Enquiry

Committee. According to learned counsel, the applicant had obtained

due permission from the BDO while disbursing the amount to the

labourers and contractors. As such, the applicant did not commit any

irregularity while performing his duty. Moreover, the Executive

Engineer, Zilla Praishad had approved the work done in the said period,

which is alleged in the FIR.

4]

The learned counsel then submitted that even the Audit of

Gram Panchayat, Sarole Pathar was conducted for the aforesaid alleged

period, wherein, only minor discrepancies were pointed out by the

auditor suggesting remedial measures for removing the same. The

learned counsel then invited my attention to the chart filed pursuant to

the direction of this court and would submit that the said chart would

{3}

ABA 321.21.odt

make it clear that everything was done in accordance with law. Lastly, the

laerned counsel submits that even otherwise, the whole case is based on

documentary evidence. The necessary documents have already been

collected by the prosecuting agenc and this being so, there is no question

of custodial interrogation. The learned counsel also showed his readiness

to cooperate with the investigating agency.

5]

Mr. Ghayal, the learned APP, on the other hand, vehemently

opposed the submissions and would submit that the amount which has