The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by a bank cashier accused of misappropriating funds. The court noted the applicant admitted to a cash deficit and returned money but nevertheless denied relief without merits.
Application under section 438 CrPC rejected; no anticipatory bail granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
33.aba159.18
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 159 OF 2018
Rahul Vilaschandra Bora. ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.
Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, advocate for applicant.
Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for State.
Mr. V.S. Gaikwad, PN, Chakan Police Station, Pune.
CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : JANUARY 30, 2018
P.C.:
Talwalkar 1/3
2 33.aba159.18
Rajgurunagar Cooperative Bank Ltd., Khed. That on 8/1/2018 Kishor Adak working as Assistant General Manager of the said bank lodged FIR at the police station alleging therein that the staff consists of 8 persons. The applicant happens to be cashier. The applicant is entrusted with the work of managing strong room, depositing amount in ATM and maintaining accounts of the same. On 2/1/2018 there was cash audit from the main branch. Rajendra Nangare and Atul Chavan had been to Rajgurunagar Brach. They had conducted cash audit and also checked the accounts. They found that there is deficit of Rs. 10000/-. Upon enquiry with the present applicant, he had immediately deposited Rs. 10,000/- in order to tally the said account.
The same raises suspicion and thereafter, there was a cash audit. It was seen that on 5/1/2018 there should have been cash of Rs. 43,95,200/-. However, there was deficit and the actual amount found was Rs. 1,59,200/-. There was no plausible explanation from the applicant for the said deficit. He had given evasive answers.
3 Upon perusal of the papers of investigation, it is clear that the applicant herein had misappropriated the amount. On 5/1/2018 the
Talwalkar 2/3
3 33.aba159.18
applicant had also submitted a hand-written admission that on 5/1/2018 he had handed over charge to Shubhangi Nangare. He has admitted about deficit of Rs. 13,05,953/- and also admitted that he has taken the said amount for his personal use.
4 In the above mentioned facts, the applicant does not deserve discretionary relief under section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. Hence, the application being sans merits stands rejected.
5 However, it is made clear that observations made hereinabove are restricted to the application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of quashing of FIR or discharge application or at the time of trial.
( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J)
Talwalkar
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an applicant apprehending arrest for alleged misappropriation in BK Mills cheating offence deserves discretionary relief under section 438 CrPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahul Vilaschandra Bora
State of Maharashtra
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
