JUDGMENT Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. - Heard with the aid of case diary. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the instant bail application on behalf of applicant No.2 - Sandeep. 3. Prayer accepted. 4. Accordingly, the instant bail application is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of applicant No.2 Ankit. 5. Now, this application is considered only on behalf of applicant No.1 - Sunil Sharma. 6. This is first application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail, as the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.156/2022 registered at Police Station Kanadiya, Distt. Indore (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of IPC. 7. Prosecution case in brief is that applicant being an office bearer of Haryana Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit took an amount of Rs.30.00 lakh on the pretext of executing sale deed of plots and misappropriated the same. Accordingly, case has been registered against the applicant. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution case itself the amount was deposited in the account of Haryana Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Indore and applicant did not take any amount in his personal capacity. Admittedly, at the time of depositing of amount, applicant's father Laxminarayan Sharma was the president of the society. Now, the Sub-Registrar of Sahkari Sanstha has been appointed as Manager of the society and the society being controlled by him, not by the applicant. Applicant has only been implicated in the matter because he is one of the office bearer of the society and son of Laxminarayan Sharma. Nothing specific has been alleged against him. His custodial interrogation/trial is not required in the matter. Trial will certainly take time to conclude therefore, under such circumstances, applicant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State as well as counsel for the complainants oppose the prayer and submit that the amount given by the complainants was although deposited in the account of society but the same was taken by the applicant no.1. Property for which the amount was taken, is disputed property and applicant knowing the same, took the amount from the complainant and misappropriated the same. Therefore, applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Property for which the amount was taken, is disputed property and applicant knowing the same, took the amount from the complainant and misappropriated the same. Therefore, applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. As per prosecution case itself the amount said to be received by the applicant, was deposited in the account of Haryana Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Indore. Admittedly, the said society has been taken over by the officials of Sahkari Sanstha, Inodre and is not under control of the applicant. In view of the aforesaid, considering the nature of allegations alleged against the applicant and overall facts and circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed in respect of applicant No.1. 12. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant No.1Sunil Sharma, she shall be released on bail upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for her appearance before the Trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. M.Cr.C. stands disposed of, accordingly. Certified copy, as per Rules.