1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.APPLICATION NO.3648 OF 2008 (ANANT KESHAVRAO BRAHME ..Vs.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. C.I.D.) WITH CRI.APPLICATION NO.3662 OF 2008 (DINKAR SADASHIVRAO CHIMURKAR ..Vs.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. C.I.D.) WITH CRI.APPLICATION NO.4058 OF 2008 (MILIND DINKARRAO CHIMURKAR ..Vs.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. C.I.D.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri Anil S. Mardikar, Shri V.M.Deshpande and Shri Sunil Manohar, Advocates for applicants. Shri S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : DECEMBER 08, 2008. 1. By these applications, Directors of Samta Sahakari Bank, pray for being admitted to bail. They have been in jail for about six months. Some Directors of the bank had been admitted to anticipatory bail. The State took the matter to the Apex Court. While discharging Rule on 03.09.2008, the Apex Court left undisturbed anticipatory bail granted to all except one Rohini C. Kulkarni. Two Directors Anil Kadrekar and Sunil Balbudhe sought bail from this Court on the ground that their cases were not different from the cases of those directors whose bail has been confirmed by the Apex Court. Their applications were allowed by this Court by order dated 06.10.2008 after 2 they stated that each of them would deposit with the trial Court a sum of Rs.Three Lacs to show their bonafides. 2. In the hearing, on 27th November, 2008 it had been observed that the Administrator of the Bank had stated that most of the amounts are recoverable from the borrowers. The parties were, therefore, directed to exclude loan also which were regular, to find out how many loan accounts are irregular, how many accounts can be said to be bad debts and out of them how many bad debts are attributable to the negligence of the applicants in not taking securities, permitting securities to be returned, or granting loans in defiance of the Rules. The Investigating Officer and the Administrator were also directed to prepare charts of the liabilities, which could be attributed to the applicants. This was directed in order to ensure that recovery of common man's money in deposit with the Bank is, as far as possible, secured and the applicants do not enjoy their allegedly ill-gotten wealth or litigate on the strength of such wealth. However, today neither the applicants or their counsel nor the Additional Public Prosecutor have filed any charts to show as to what should be the liability attributable to the three applicants. Repeatedly saying that the loss to the Bank is 103 crores is not going to help, unless the losses attributable to lapses of individual Directors have been ascertained. 3 3. The learned counsel for one of the applicants, points out that while sanctioning loans to M/s. Hemani Group, his client had not attended the meeting. The meeting was presided over by one Mrs. Desai and other Directors, who have already been released on bail. The applicants claim that they cannot therefore, be treated differently. The learned counsel also pointed out that one Ashok Ninuji Narkhede has been admitted to provisional bail by an order dated 1st December, 2008 by a learned Single Judge. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants state that their clients, to show their bonafides, would deposit a sum of Rs.Ten Lacs, in two instalments, in addition to whatever securities of the applicants, the Bank has already seized. 5. The learned A.P.P. states that the liability of the applicants is far in excess of these amounts and therefore, opposes the applicants being bailed out on deposit of such amounts. 6. Investigation in this case is over and charge sheets have already been filed. While considering the question of grant of bail, all that has to necessarily seen is, whether the applicants would be available for facing trial and to suffer the sentence, if imposed. The offences may attract maximum penalty of ten years or life imprisonment, since one of the offences is punishable under Section 409 of the Penal Code. 4 7. All the same, deposit of Rs.Ten Lacs each, plus securities, which have already been seized by the Investigating Agency ought to ensure that the applicants would rather face trial than run away. 8. In view of this, and since, the option to take proceedings under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and getting order of adjudication under Section 95 of the said Act (referred to by learned Single Judge in his order dated 01.12.2008 on application of Shri Narkhede) is always available to the functionalities of the State, it may not be necessary to detain the applicants further till their trial is over. 9. In view of this, the applicants be released on their furnishing P.R.B. in Rs.One Lac each with two solvent sureties, each, in the like amount, on the following conditions : i) The applicants shall attend the office of Additional Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. on every Wednesday and Sunday at 11.00 a.m. ii) The applicants shall furnish their telephone numbers, mobile numbers and surrender their passports. 5 iii) The applicants shall also furnish list of all the properties they have and the Investigating Officer may cause appropriate publication to ensure that the properties of these persons are not transferred. iv) The applicants shall also furnish an undertaking that they shall not create any third party interest in their properties till the trial is over. v) The applicants shall deposit a sum of Rs.Five Lacs each by 22nd December, 2008 and another sum of Rs. Five Lacs each by 5th January, 2009 with Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Nagpur. 10. The learned Magistrate shall invest these amounts in the local branch of State Bank of India in order to ensure that the amount fetches maximum interest. The amount so deposited shall be treated as property in the case and shall be dealt with by the learned Magistrate at the end of the trial. 11. If the amounts are not deposited, as offered by the applicants, this order shall stand revoked automatically. 12. All these applications stand disposed of accordingly. JUDGE RR.