(1) CRI.APP. 3185.2010+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3185 OF 2010 1. Mangalsing Surajsing Pardeshi 2. Ajay Prabhakar Chaudhari 3. Abhay Prabhakar Chaudhari 4. Lalit Madhav Chaudhari 5. Sanjay Pandharinath Chaudhari 6. Tikaram Vasudev Supe 7. Sudhakar Purushottam Fegade .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3201 OF 2010 1. Nilesh Subhash Chaudhari 2. Krushna Sudhakar Koshti .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents Mr. R.S. Shinde, Advocate h/f. Mr. N.N. Desale, Advocate for the Applicants in both the Applications Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent-State in both the Applications ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 30TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. These are Applications for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) CRI.APP. 3185.2010+1 2. The applicants are members of the Board of Directors, Chairman and Manager of Amman Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. The audit inspection reveal several lapses out of which main lapse was that an amount of Rs.28 Lakhs was invested with one Jay Ganrai Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Faizpur though, it was legally impermissible to make such investment in the credit society. The said credit society saw dooms day and has been taken over by the Administrator. The amounts of depositors have therefore become insecured. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP. 4. The auditor noticed that though the investment was made under the resolution of the Board of Directors yet it was mainly done by the Chairman and the Manager. The directors were not responsible for making such investment. It prima facie appears that the Chairman-Nilesh Chaudhari and the Manager- Krushna Koshti, who have filed Criminal Application (3) CRI.APP. 3185.2010+1 no. 3201 of 2010 have made financial adventurism without taking proper precaution and in breach of section 7 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 5. The argument of learned counsel is that the intention of the applicants was to gain more interest on account of such investment. The intention of the Chairman and the Manager cannot be gathered at the present stage. It is not necessary to examine the question of intention at this juncture because intention is always the state of mind which exists at the relevant time. 6. Considering the recitals of the FIR and the attending circumstances, it appears prima facie that the applicants no.1 to 7, who have filed Criminal Application no. 3185 of 2010 are likely to be humiliated on account of their arrest. They are not beneficiaries of the said investment nor had done anything except signing the resolution at the behest of the Chairman and the Manager. Hence, their (4) CRI.APP. 3185.2010+1 anticipatory bail Application is granted in terms of interim order dated 12.8.2010. The anticipatory bail order so granted will come to end on filing of the chargesheet against them if they are found concerned with the commission of the offence and the chargesheet is filed against them. Sofar as the applicants Nilesh Chaudhari and Krushna Koshti are concerned, in view of their prima facie concern with the commission of the offence and probable mens-rea, their Application (Criminal Application no. 3201 of 2010) is dismissed. Both the Criminal Application stand disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp