1 Applns 3932-3999-4002/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3932 OF 2010 Bansrajsingh Brijmohansingh Rajput .... Applicants & Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. Shirish Gupte i/by Ms. Rucheeta Dhuru, Advocate for applicants. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3999 OF 2010 Sudhir Shriniwas Karandikar & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. Ashok Mundargi i/by Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, Advocate for applicants. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4002 OF 2010 Madan Govind Chorghade & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/by Hrishikesh Marwadi, Advocate for applicants. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for respondents. 2 Applns 3932-3999-4002/2010 Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 17th September, 2010 P.C. 1. This is a common order on three applications for anticipatory bail by in all nine applicants, who are named as accused in criminal complaint, C.R.no.54 of 2010 registered with Dahanu Road Police Station, by one Arun Kale, Additional Special Auditor, Class II, Thane for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B Indian Penal Code. The applicants are either sitting or Ex-Directors of Dahanu Road Janata Co-operative Bank, Dahanu (hereinafter referred to as the Bank ) along with 12 other persons “ ” named as accused in the complaint. The applicants in Criminal Application No.3932 of 2010 are account holders with the Bank. They are close relatives i.e. father and brothers of one of the Directors, Bharat Rajput, who is also named as an accused in the complaint. The complaint against all the accused persons is of mis-appropriation of bank funds by mis-using the official positions. 2. The complaint alleges that on 29th April 2003, the Reserve Bank of India issued a Circular that the directors of the co-operative banks and their near relatives cannot obtain credit facilities or loan facilities from the same bank. Despite this specific direction, during the period 1st April 2003 to 27th December 2009,there have been extensive credit facilities obtained by the 3 Applns 3932-3999-4002/2010 directors of the bank and also by their relatives. All these facilities have been without prior sanction. They have been accorded post facto sanction. Accused nos.2 to 4,the applicants in Criminal Application No.3932 of 2010 and Bharat Rajput were granted loan against F.D.R. of third party. The loan was disbursed without prior grant of the application and actual disbursement was much more than the request made in the applications. The particulars thereof are listed below : Sr. No. Names Loan A/c No. Applied for Sanction for Actual amt. taken 1. Bharat Bansraj Rajput LNFTR 5425 26,00,000/- 26,00,000/- 28,14,510/- 2 Jagdish Bansraj Rajput LNFTR 5426 29,50,000/- 29,50,000/- 31,93,737/- 3 Rambahadur Bansraj Rajput LNFTR 5427 36,00,000/- 36,00,000/- 39,29,661/- 4 Bansrajsing Rajput INFTR 5428 35,00,000/- 35,00,000/- 38,20,503/- The records produced shows that the above loans obtained against F.D.R. totalling to the extent of Rs.1,37,58,401/- was against Fixed Deposit receipts in the sum of Rs.5,36,309/- held by Vasant Karnavat, a director of the bank. Perusal of the letter of consent by director Vasant Karnavat shows that it does not even mention the numbers of fixed deposit receipts nor the amount of the loan was requested for. Similarly promissory notes executed by the borrowers neither mention the amount nor the rate of interest applicable. It is also seen that all these loans have been granted without letter of lien, signed transfer form in respect of fixed deposit receipts, third party guarantee from, original F.D. Receipts with the charge of the bank recorded therein and the demand of promissory note. 4 Applns 3932-3999-4002/2010 The above four accused also received following overdraft facilities on the current accounts with total disregard to the rules provided therefor. Sr. No. Names Loan A/c No. 1. Bharat Bansraj Rajput CD 5452 73,81,758/- 2 Bansrajsing Rajput CD 5611 10,01,028/- 3 Jagdish Bansraj Rajput CD 5668 86,34,690/- 4 Rambahadur Bansraj Rajput CD 5752 64,03,727/- 3. Similarly, the Director, Sudhir Karandikar, the applicant in Criminal Application No.3999 of 2010 obtained loan in the name of his wife, Sandhya. Directors Ramesh Kakad and Bhavesh Desai obtained loan against fixed deposits and overdraft facilities on the current account respectively in their own names. Bharat Rajput and his family also obtained loan in the name of one of their employees on 15th April 2009. The employee, Madhukar Ranmale whose annual income is of Rs.1,10,000/- has been granted loan in the sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- for development of land, without proper documentation. Bharat Rajput is a guarantor for repayment of loan. It appears that one Krishna Dhoda and other persons complained about the irregularities in the functioning of the bank and also mis-appropriation of the bank funds, which led to the enquiries finally leading to the complaint. 4. As regards the availment of various facilities, none of the accused dispute the same. The applicants in Criminal Application NO.3932 of 2010 claim that the entire loan obtained from the bank has been repayed with interest and therefore according to them, it cannot be said that there is any 5 Applns 3932-3999-4002/2010 actual mis-appropriation of the bank funds. As has been pointed out by the learned APP, return of those amounts has been only after the complaint made by Mr.Ghoda. In any case merely because the amount has been repayed to the bank, it cannot be said that there was no mis-appropriation of the funds. The complaint prima facie discloses that all the directors have mis-used their official positions and availed extensive credit facilities and loan facilities to some of the directors. The facts of the case are absolutely gross. The directors of the Bank are seen to have treated the Bank funds as their private treasury. 5. It has been submitted that some of the directors i.e. accused nos. 1,5 to 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 19 to 21 have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court at Palghar and therefore the applicants must get an advantage of parity with the other accused persons. It has also been submitted that all the applicants are persons of substance and there can be no fear of they not being available either for the investigation or subsequently for the trial. Though the other directors have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, Palghar, the applicants cannot be treated on par with them because those applications had been filed in the month of May 2010, when the F.I.R. was not filed. The Police were in the process of preliminary enquiry into the complaint. The F.I.R. came to be filed on 15th July 2010. The present applicants thereafter had filed applications before the Sessions Court,Palghar for anticipatory bail, which applications 6 Applns 3932-3999-4002/2010 have been rejected. Besides the possibility of the Police filing applications for cancellation of bail, in view of filing of F.I.R. cannot be ruled out. Further taking into consideration the status of the applicants, the possibility of further mis-use of their respective positions cannot be ruled out. Hence, applications are rejected. 6. At the request of Mr. Marwadi, it is clarified that as and when the applicants herein file applications for regular bail, the trial Court shall dispose the same off on their own merits, without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J)