1 CA5021/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5021 OF 2011 1. Vijaykumar Babanrao Bhandkar 2. Premsukh Lalchand Patwa 3. Anandkumar Ramchandra Chordiya 4. Shankarrao Kisanrao Tupe 5. Shilpa Ramesh Baheti 6. Eknath Mohan Thokal 7. Ashok Vishwanath Kotkar 8. Basvanappa Chanappa Maindargi Applicants V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the applicants Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent / State Mr. N.B. Narwade, Advocate, Assist to A.P.P. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 9th December, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocates of both sides including learned Advocate Mr. N.B. Narwade, on behalf of the complainant, who supported the learned A.P.P. 2. The present applicants, who are concerned with the Ahmednagar District Central Co-op. Bank (hereinafter referred as ‘said Bank’) in respective 2 CA5021/11 capacity, apprehend arrest in connection with CR No. M – 55 of 2011 of Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. A perusal of the record goes to show that a loan account was created in the name of present complainant by obtaining signatures on certain documents thereby representing him that he was to stand as a guarantor for the loan facility of applicant No.1. The record indicates that the said Bank had granted him loan of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cash credit facility. Learned Advocate for the applicants made available to the Court a Photostat copy of the cheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- being a bearer cheque drawn in the name of complainant and it was dated 7th May, 2002. It was submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicants that the loan amount was paid to the complainant by way of a cash and when the complainant did not repay the loan amount to the said Bank, said Bank filed the suit 3 CA5021/11 for recovery of amount, and it is thereafter, the present complainant has filed the present complaint so as to avoid repayment of loan liability. 4. I have perused the necessary police papers. If at all the present complainant was granted loan to his knowledge and to his consent, there was no question of paying a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to him by way of a bearer cheque. Since the loan was granted as cash credit facility, in the normal course, the loan account could have been created and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- being loan amount could have been credited in it and it could have been open to the complainant to withdraw the same under his signature from the said Bank from time to time to avail the loan facility. It is difficult to understand as to how the entire loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- came to be paid to the complainant by way of a bearer cheque. This practice itself raises a serious doubt about the complainant not having benefit of the loan amount. As of today, the word of the complainant that 4 CA5021/11 he did not receive any amount and that he had never applied for loan, is required to be accepted. The circumstances under which a bogus loan account came to be created in favour of the present complainant and as to how the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- came to be disbursed to the said loan account on the strength of bearer cheque, is a matter which requires deeper investigation and for that the police will have to be given appropriate opportunity. In the matter like this, if the anticipatory bail is granted, it would curtail the powers of the investigators to have investigation in a proper manner. In my view, this is not a fit case in which Court should grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Hence, anticipatory bail application stands rejected. Needless to mention that on account of this order, interim protection granted in favour of the applicants comes to an end forthwith. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/9/12/11 5 CA5021/11