1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.2555 of 2008 Vilas Ganapatrao Gatade Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for State. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. Oct P.C. . Heard Mr.Arjunwadkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Saste, learned APP. . The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R. No.I-71 of 2008 of Laxmipuri Police Station, Kolhapur. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and twenty one others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Sections 177, 403, 405, 406, 409, 415, 416, 417, 420, 463, 465, 467, 468 and 477(A) of IPC. . The applicant was one of the Directors of Shri Basweshwar Co-operative Credit Society, Kolhapur from 1/4/1999 to 14/8/2004. I have perused the FIR dated 8/7/2008 lodged by the Special Auditor, Class-I, Co-operative Society (Sugar), 2 Sangli. In pursuance of the order dated 18/8/2007 issued by the Special Auditor, Co-operative Society, Kolhapur, the test audit of the Credit Society was conducted for the period between 1/4/2005 to 31/3/2006. During this period accused nos.1 to 16 were the Directors, whereas accused nos.17 to 19 were Managers and accused nos.20 to 22 were working as Branch Managers. It is alleged that during this period several illegalities / irregularities were committed in the banking operations by all the accused persons which caused loss to the said Credit Society of Rs.4.16 crores. It is alleged that the members of the Board of Directors of the said Credit Society while disbursing the loans did not consider the capacity of borrowers, details of mortgage, capacity of repayment of loan and value of the mortgaged property etc. and they accepted the guarantee of the persons who were not in existence and thereby caused huge loss to the said society. So far as the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged that 21 loans of Rs.194.90 lakhs were given to his relatives prior to 1999 without verifying their capacity of repayment and without verifying the documents submitted by them by way of security. The applicant was instrumental in granting those 3 loans. According to the prosecution the total sum outstanding with agreed rate of interest against the relatives of the applicant as of today is almost four crores. Till filing of the FIR hardly Rs.95 lakhs were paid by the relatives of the applicant against 21 loan accounts. . On the last date of hearing Mr.Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate had appeared on behalf of the applicant and had made a statement before this Court that the applicant was prepared to secure the outstanding loan amount by either depositing the substantial amount or by furnishing bank guarantee. Today there is no positive response forthcoming from the applicant in order to secure the amount outstanding against 21 loan accounts of his relatives. . Today, once again, Mr. Arjunwadkar, learned counsel for the applicant took me through the entire material placed before this Court. Upon perusal of the said material on record, I am satisfied that the offence in the present case, as disclosed in the FIR, prima facie seems to have been committed by the applicant. There exists sufficient 4 evidence/material on record, against the applicant, as has been observed by the Court below in its order dated 22/7/2008 while rejecting his application for anticipatory bail. If the persons who are in the helm of affairs of the establishments, such as the credit society or bank, commit such irregularities / illegalities its customers whose amount has been lying in such credit society would not be safe and the amount would not be secure. It would be improper and premature to analyse the material to discern the role of every individual accused in such a case. While considering the prayer for anticipatory bail in such matter the Court has to bear in mind the complications involved in the investigation of the alleged offence which might have been committed in the course of commercial transactions. In Narinderjit Sing Sahni’s case [AIR [AIR [AIR 2001 2001 2001 SC 3810] SC 3810] SC 3810], the Supreme Court has clearly observed that an accused facing charges under Sections 406, 409, 420 of IPC is ordinarily not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. unless it is established that such criminal accusation is not bona fide one, and it is difficult to conceive that an accused who is involved in such case can be given benefit of the privilege of 5 anticipatory bail as a matter of routine. . In the circumstances, this application is rejected.