Judgment : 1. These are applications for anticipatory bail. 2. All the applicants are named as accused alongwith many other persons in Crime No.124 of 2011 of City Police Station Beed. The offences are under Sections 406, 408, 409, 467, 468, 477A, 109, 420 r/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C. and under Sections 5 and 9 of the Maharashtra Protection of Investor’s Interest Rules, 1999. 3. Heard both the sides. Perused the case diary. 4. Facts peculiar to each case, are dealt with separately. 5. All applicants are working as employees in different capacity in Heena Shahin Co-operative Bank Ltd., Beed, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’. (a) The applicant is working as Chief Officer of the Bank. Various wrongs noted in the audit report, which involve element of criminal liability, are attributed against various officers, employees, directors and other persons. (b) It is seen from the accusations, which pertain to the applicant that he has withdrawn an amount of Rs.53,73,351/-, by way of unauthorized overdrawing, did not refund said amount and thereby committed act of misappropriation, apart from other accusations pertaining to breach of trust. (c) The information collected by the investigating officer reveals direct acts of misappropriation by way of over drawing as well as indirect acts of attracting liability towards criminal breach of trust. (d) Various withdrawals from own account without there being adequate credit balance is apparent from the evidence in the shape of withdrawal vouchers which are signed by the applicant. These withdrawals could never have been passed in absence of actual and own credit balance. These acts were possible due to applicant’s influence due to position and collusion with the employees, who are amongst other accused persons, and had passed those vouchers for payment and had paid the money to this accused. (e) It is prima facie seen, that the applicant has indulged in various criminal acts by use of his knowledge which he has acquired about the banking business, collusion with some amongst the Directors and lack of adequate knowledge on the part of remaining members of the management to understand the fraudulent conduct of the applicant. (f) The acts attributed are grave and serious, a white collar crime. (a) He was working as clerk/cashier at relevant period. He was having a saving account which is also his salary account. (f) The acts attributed are grave and serious, a white collar crime. (a) He was working as clerk/cashier at relevant period. He was having a saving account which is also his salary account. (b) Accusation against the applicant is that he has withdrawn from said account various amounts though he had not deposited money apart from salary credited in said account. All these withdrawals which were in excess of salary were based on credit which was either unauthorized or was by way of over drawing. This type of overdrawing and redeposit etc. continued for long duration. (c) When audit was conducted, total overdrawing by him which had remained unpaid was found to be Rs.63,549/ (d) He has deposited the sum of Rs.63,549/without prejudice to his rights. (e) He disputes having signed withdrawals. (f) He claimed that his account was hidden by the Chief Executive Officer. (g) Case diary reveals that withdrawals purportedly signed by him on the front as well as reverse (on the back side) of money withdrawal slip are on record. Various amounts are seen withdrawn are from same account in which salary was deposited and withdrawn by him. (h) The contention of the applicant that his account/ledger was hidden by the Manager and he did not have any knowledge about the entries therein is in the nature of defence, and it cannot be accepted at this stage. (i) In this background, prima facie there is a strong case against the applicant for having withdrawn the amount without authority and, hence committing the offence of misappropriation. It is also seen that he has permitted payment and used password without authority and, hence has prima facie committed the offence of breach of trust. 8. Criminal Application No. 5693 of 2011 Shaikh Faruque s/o Abdul Gaffar (a) He was working as clerk/cashier at relevant period. (b) Accusation against the applicant is of : (i) Permitting withdrawals without there being credit balance in his own account and thereby misappropriating different amounts of the bank from time to time. (ii) Suppression of entries caused in the account titled as ‘Savings Difference Account’, ‘Time Deposit Difference Account’, and ‘Dam-Duppad Difference Account’ which accounts had got inflated due to wrong and unauthorized withdrawals which could not be accounted/settled. (iii) Un-authorizedly abusing password of others. (iv) Abusing position as son of ex-director, and misappropriating funds. (ii) Suppression of entries caused in the account titled as ‘Savings Difference Account’, ‘Time Deposit Difference Account’, and ‘Dam-Duppad Difference Account’ which accounts had got inflated due to wrong and unauthorized withdrawals which could not be accounted/settled. (iii) Un-authorizedly abusing password of others. (iv) Abusing position as son of ex-director, and misappropriating funds. (c) Suppression of the “difference” accounts and these figures has caused the misappropriation to remain uncovered. (d) In this background, prima facie there is a strong case of commission of offences by the applicant. Withdrawals of amount without credit balance amounts to misappropriation. Permitting payment without authority and use of password without authority turns out to be breach of trust. 9. Criminal Application No. 32 of 2012 Mohammad Mujibar Rahiman s/o Inayatur Rahaman (a) He was working as clerk/cashier at the relevant period. (b) Accusation against the applicant is that:- (i) He has withdrawn from his account an amount of Rs. 2,04,657/- on an unsigned voucher and without there being credit of his own money in his account. (ii) He has sanctioned / passed for payment or caused payment of various amount on different accounts as narrated in paragraph No.4 of the F.I.R. (Audit-report treated as F.I.R.) without there being corresponding credit and authority to make excess payment. (iii) Unauthorised use of password to cause various payments. (c) Though it is seen in the F.I.R. That there is reference to unsigned voucher towards withdrawal of Rs. 2,04,567/-. Evidence collected by I.O. shows that there are original vouchers (withdrawal slips) in which same amount and same date is written and those bear signature of applicant on the front as well as on its back side. It is likely that these signed slips may have been tendered later-on to rectify the audit objection. (d) Applicant claims that he does not have authority to pass the cheques or withdrawal slips for payment. (e) It is seen that witnesses have stated in relation to the financial irregularities of the applicant which amounts to acts of breach of trust. (f) In this background, prima facie there is a strong case against the applicant for withdrawing the amount without authority and, hence misappropriation as well as permitting payment without authority and, hence breach of trust. MirzaAmjad Beig s/o Ahmed Beig (a) Hewas working as clerk/cashier during relevant period. (f) In this background, prima facie there is a strong case against the applicant for withdrawing the amount without authority and, hence misappropriation as well as permitting payment without authority and, hence breach of trust. MirzaAmjad Beig s/o Ahmed Beig (a) Hewas working as clerk/cashier during relevant period. (b) Accusation against the applicant is that:- (i) He has drawn overdrawn unauthorisedly from his own savings account an amount of Rs.1,94,220/-. (ii) He has signed for passing of the withdrawal slip / voucher of the amount of Rs.2,04,657/- of Mohd. Mujibar Rahiman, who is another accused. (iii) The sum-effect of the overdrawing himself and allowing over drafts is breach of trust. (c) In this background, there is prima facie strong case against the applicant of overdrawing / withdrawing the amount without authority from own account and, hence misappropriation. He has permitted payment without authority and, hence committed breach of trust. 11. It is seenthat audit of the Heena Shahin Cooperative Bank, Beed, was conducted by officers of the Government’s department of cooperation. Numerous irregularities were found in the process of audit. In-depth scrutiny of these irregularities revealed various acts of misappropriation by different persons who are staff members, and similar acts by all accused generally.. 12. It prima facie reveals that Chief Executive Officer has engaged himself in withdrawing various amounts by creating fictitious credit by use of the computerized data, creating corresponding debit in the unsettled or suspense accounts titled differently. 13. Present group of applications consists of Chief Officer or Manager of the Bank. The accused who is the Chief Officer is the kingpin, and other staff members have all acted as auxiliary to main accused. All accused together seem appear to be in league and were concurrent on breach of trust. 14. All accused taken together as if privileged, have ultimately cheated the small depositors in the bank by usurping the deposit by these small depositors. On what prima facie appears, all of them have acted in gross betrayal of faith of depositors. 15. The classes of offences turning graver from the grave and heinous from the graver are seen growing in the zone occupied by men with white collar. Small investors have deposited the money earned by them with hard toil, in bank with an ardent faith and trust. 15. The classes of offences turning graver from the grave and heinous from the graver are seen growing in the zone occupied by men with white collar. Small investors have deposited the money earned by them with hard toil, in bank with an ardent faith and trust. Those who are equipped with knowledge like the applicants, and are usually dealing in money belonging to such small men, are seen using such money in total betrayal of the faith and trust reposed in them. 16. Pains of small men are far severe even for loss of a small amount in comparison with those who earn in trillions and lose in millions. Present is a case of loss to a small man whose paltry sum is defrauded. When a small man looses all his savings of hard boiled days and years, it does colossal injury to him. 17. Gravity may have to be gauged not from the amount of misappropriation, but from the person who has defrauded and the person who is defrauded. 18. The categorization of offence for those who have gained expertise and use it for betrayal of trust has to be ranked worst in their degree. This aspect renders the act of accused persons of no lesser gravity than the offence against body and life of the person. One amongst inevitable sides of life is joy, and pecuniary resource is an important device of joy. The pains and agony when hard boiled money is defrauded should be seen as a yardstick or telescope of viewing the gravity of economic offences. Therefore, the offence needs to be viewed as graver when such economic offender defrauds a small man. 19. Therefore the applicants do not deserve any latitude as indicated. The concession of pre-arrest bail which is a device to safeguard liberty from onslaught of an unjust arrest and likely ordeal of custodial experience ought not be available for accused who belong to category of persons of present nature. 20. In view of the gravity of matter revealing from the accusation against each accused, all these applications are rejected.