Cri. Appln. No. 2482/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2482 OF 2011 Shri. Shashikant Ramchandra Gangawane, R/o T.B. Hospital, Officer Quarter, Mumbai. ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. A.B. Doke h/f. Mr. J. Shekhar h/f. Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for State/respondent. Mr. N.N. Dede, Advocate for original complainant. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 1st August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for bail in Cr. No. 2/2011 registered in Chopada City Police Station, District Jalgaon for offences punishable under sections 420, 471, 120-B, 34 etc. of IPC. Both the sides are heard. Papers of investigation were made available. The record like the original loan application etc. was also made available. Advocate Shri. N.N. Dede representating the original complainant was allowed to assist the APP. 2. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by Special Cri. Appln. No. 2482/11 2 Auditor. Allegations are mainly made against the Chairman and other office bearers of Tapi Sahakari Credit Society. There are allegations that by creating false record huge amount of society was siphoned and misappropriated by the Chairman and other office bearers and also by the employees of the society. There are allegations that the loans were sanctioned to the friends and relatives of Chairman and office bearers and even when the borrowers had not given any security, huge loan were sanctioned to such borrowers. Due to this conduct of the Chairman and office bearers, the depositors of the society are duped and the society is not in a position to return the deposits. 3. In the supplementary statement given by the Special Auditor, he has made allegations against the Chairman and one Dr. Tasgaonkar that loan of Rs. 20 Crore was sanctioned to Dr. Tasgaonkar as he is friend of Chairman. There are allegations that when Banai Hospital and Research Center was not in existence and when there was no property of the proposed hospital, the loan of Rs. 20 Crore was sanctioned and amount of Rs. 7.75 Crore was actually disbursed. Present applicant stood as a guarantor to the said transaction. As per the record produced today Dr. Tagaonkar is in dues of Rs. 12 Crores. There are allegations against the present applicant that even when he was knowing that there was no record with Dr. Tasgaonkar to show that he has any property to give by way of security, he signed as guarantor. It was also submitted that Cri. Appln. No. 2482/11 3 present applicant could not have been accepted as surety as he is not in a position to discharge the liability. On the other hand, it was submitted for the applicant that the amount of Rs. 4 Crore is deposited by Dr. Tasgaonkar. Even after considering this amount as per the account statement, the amount due is around 12 Crores. 4. The record shows that by way of mortgage some property was to be given as security. Copies of some agreements executed in favour of Saraswati Hospital Trust were produced and Dr. Tasgaonkar is said to be the person incharge of this trust. The record shows that permission was obtained from Commissioner of Co-operative Societies to extend the limit in respect of the power of the society and four such permissions were given to sanction loan of Rs. 5 Crore. Thus, the permission was obtained from Commissioner to sanction total amount of Rs. 20 Crore. But, this record also shows that necessary security was to be taken by the Society. 5. The record like copy of agreement shows that agreement was made with some farmers for Saraswati Hospital to purchase the property. Submissions were made that the transactions could not materialize. It appears that nothing more was sought as security. Even if it is presumed that Dr. Tasgaonkar had the authority to give property mentioned in the agreement by way of security, this could have been Cri. Appln. No. 2482/11 4 done only after getting permission of office of Charity Commissioner. When it was only an agreement, there was no interest or title in respect of the property mentioned in the agreement in favour of Dr. Tasgaonkar and so the society could not have taken this document as the document of title. The same can be said in respect of the surety. He supplied information that his monthly salary was Rs. 20,000/-. He had informed that he owns one car, but even the number of the car was not given. Thus, present applicant was not in a position to discharge the liability in respect of the loan, if there was default on the part of Dr. Tasgaonkar. All these circumstances are sufficient to make out prima facie case for offences punishable under sections 420, 120-B of IPC. 6. It was submitted for the applicant that he was only guarantor and there is nothing on record to show that the money came to him also. It was submitted that he is behind bars for more than 60 days. It was submitted that the police could not arrest Dr. Tasgaonkar, the main accused in respect of the loan transaction and nothing is known as to when the police will arrest Dr. Tasgaonkar. It was submitted that the applicant is working in the hospital of Bombay Municipal Corporation and there is no possibility of his absconding. 7. The record produced on record and the aforesaid circumstances show that the present applicant helped Dr. Tasgaonkar in getting the Cri. Appln. No. 2482/11 5 loan, but the fact remains that police have not arrested Dr. Tasgaonkar. It is difficult to infer at this stage that the applicant got some share from the aforesaid transaction. Main allegations are against Chairman and Dr. Tasgaonkar. As the applicant has been behind bars for more than 60 days and Dr. Tasgaonkar is not yet arrested, this Court holds that subject to some conditions, bail can be granted to present applicant. 8. So the applicant is allowed. The applicant is to be released on bail in Cr. No. 2/2011 registered in Chopada City Police Station, District Jalgaon for offences punishable under sections 420, 471, 120-B, 34 etc. of IPC on his furnishing PR and SB of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with one solvent surety of like amount. He is to deposit his passport with police. He is not to leave India and Maharashtra before taking permission of the Sessions Court. He is not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses and he is to make himself available as and when called by Investigating Officer for the purpose of giving information regarding the case. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criapln2482.11