Allowed

Prahlad Ganpatrao Parve v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Wadgaon, Yavatmal

Bombay HC25 Mar 2014ABA/128/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application ABA No.128 of 2014, the High Court at Nagpur granted bail to an administrative officer accused of misappropriating Gram-Panchayat funds pending investigation, noting the investigation could be completed without custody.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000- with one solvent surety in like amount, subject to attendance at the Investigating Officer as required.

Prahlad Ganpatrao Parve Vs State of Maharashtra, through… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.128 OF 2014

¶4

(Pralhad Ganpatrao Parve ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS Wadgaon, District Yavatmal)

¶5

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

- - - - Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for the applicant, Shri A.K. Bangadkar, Addl.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.

¶7

CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 25-03-2014

¶8

Heard learned Counsel Shri A.A. Naik for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.K. Bangadkar for the non-applicant/State.

¶9

The applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime No. 26/2014 of Wadgaon Road Police Station, District Yavatmal for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. He was working as Extension Officer and Administrative Officer, Gram-Panchayat Wadgaon. Admittedly, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) was deposited in the bank account of Gram-Panchayat, which was received from Mr. Choriya as against construction permission given by the Gram-Panchayat. The amount was to be needed for various development programmes of the village. It is alleged that the applicant was suspended on 23-8-2012 and thereafter he had continued to hold the post without any authority from the competent officer. During this period, he had allegedly misappropriated the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶10

2 aba128.14

¶11

Learned Counsel Shri A.A. Naik has submitted that admittedly applicant had spent money after his suspension. As the relieving officer had not come, the applicant had continued to hold the office. It is submitted that enquiry was held and the applicant had produced all the vouchers and receipts in respect of the amounts spent by him. I have gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer, a copy of which is produced before me by the learned Counsel for the applicant. The Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that though an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) has been spent, the applicant has not produced any receipt. Learned Counsel Shri A.A. Naik has produced xerox copies of the vouchers and receipts of the amounts spent by the applicant. It is submitted that the original documents are lying in the office of the Extension Officer.

¶12

What is pertinent to note is that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Investigating Officer of the present crime had bothered to record statements of the persons to whom the amount is claimed to have been paid by the applicant. The applicant has given list of the commercial establishment and has also mentioned the amount paid to them. The applicant has also given details of the work done against the said amount. The Enquiry Officer or the Investigating Officer has not bothered to enquire into even one transaction to verify whether the work was actually done or not. It has not been verified as to whether the amount claimed to have been paid by the applicant was actually paid or not. The offence has been registered on 10-1-2014. More than two months have passed, but the Investigating Officer has done nothing. The investigation which could have been

¶13

3 aba128.14

¶14

completed without custody of the applicant, has not been done.

¶15

In the circumstances, it is obvious that the Investigating Officer is only waiting for custody of the applicant. As already stated by me that the issues involved in the First Information Report can be investigated without custody of the applicant. Moreover, there is no material on record to indicate that the money has actually been pocketed by the applicant. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶16

The applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount, in the event of his arrest in First Information Report No.26/2014 of Wadgaon Road Police Station, District Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The applicant shall attend the office of the Investigating Officer as and when required till completion of the investigation.

¶18

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

pma

Prahlad Ganpatrao Parve v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Wadgaon, Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Ganpatrao Parve v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Wadgaon, Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish S/O Rajendra Renke Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Sakkardara, Nagpur

The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Washim Vs Onkar Dharmaraj Shewle and 3 Others

Pravin S/O Ashok Gujar Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Dhantoli

Arvind S/O Tulshiram Kate (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra, Throgh P.S.O. Nandura

Shaikh Akhtar S/O Sk. Bismilla (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Malegaon, Washim

Liladhar S/O Shivram Khade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S. Darwha, Yavatmal