cran61.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 61 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 941 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 61 OF 2011 Amit s/o Sitaram Chavan ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 62 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 940 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 62 OF 2011 Mahesh s/o Namdeorao Gaikwad ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents ..... Mr. R.M. Deshmukh, advocate for the applicants Mr. N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: 27TH APRIL, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 The applicant in criminal application No.61 of 2011 was the Managing Director while applicant in criminal application No. 62 of 2011 was the Vice Chairman of Bhagyesh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha cran61.11 -2- Maryadit, Dhule. These applicants, by the present applications seeking for pre-arrest bail in connection with crime No. 121 of 2010 registered on 14.5.2010 with Dhule city police station on the complaint lodged by one Pradeep Waman Torne, Assistant Co-operative Officer, attached to the office of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dhule. The present applications are filed for second time by these applicants to get themselves released on anticipatory bail as on the earlier occasion criminal application No. 2318 of 2010 filed by first applicant and the application No. 2317 of 210 filed by second applicant were rejected by this Court by common order dated 5.7.2010. 2 Now it is settled legal position that successive applications for bail are permissible subject to change in the circumstances in the investigation and some new material is found during the course of further investigation. 3 During the course of submissions across the bar, learned counsel appearing for these applicants lay his hands on two fold submissions. According to him, one Sandeep Kulkarni, Secretary/Employee of the Patsanstha was released on bail by this Court in criminal application No. 4993 of 2010 vide order dated 19.11.2010 and hence on the ground of parity learned counsel claimed that these applicants be released on pre-arrest bail. Secondly, cran61.11 -3- counsel urged that now these applicants are in a position to lay their hands on certain documents showing the some amounts were deposited by the relatives of these applicants. It is also submitted across the bar that these amounts were not deposited by these applicants after registration of offence but those alleged amounts were deposited before registration of offence. In my earlier order, in detail, I have specifically discussed that during visit of the complainant to the office of Patsanstha on 15.12.2009 he noticed that office of Patsanstha was found locked. Thereafter, notices were issued to the Chairman, Vice Chairman and all managing committee members of Patsanstha calling upon them to explain as to why Patsanstha is closed down. 4 In my earlier order I have also discussed that from audit report of Patsanstha pertaining to 2006-2007, the Patsanstha has accepted the deposits from the public at large to the tune of Rs.99,49,000/-. Most of the depositors of Patsanstha are small depositors who have invested the amounts in some three or four digits. I have noticed in my earlier order that when none of the Managing Director, Chairman or the Vice Chairman had responded to the notice issued by the complainant, with police aid the lock put to the premises of Patsanstha was broke open in presence of panch witnesses. Thereafter during inspection of the said premises no record of Patsanstha was found in the premises. All these facts on record show that the Chairman, cran61.11 -4- Vice Chairman and all other managing committee members of the said Patsanstha fled with the amounts more than Rs.1.00 Crores deposited by the small investors and investors are waiting for them with an anticipation that they will receive some percentage of the amounts deposited with the Patsanstha. In my view, as no record is available in the premises of Patsanstha, it is necessary to interrogate the managing committee managers so also the Chairman and Vice Chairman and their custody is required for the said purpose. One way or the other, these applicants and other managing committee members are avoiding their arrest. 5 So far the release on bail of Sandeep Kulkarni, Secretary of the said Patsanstha is concerned, it will no way help to release these applicants on anticipatory bail, as said Sandeep Kulkarni was the Secretary of the Patsanstha and was acting on the instructions or at the instances of the managing committee members and he was not having any control over the financial affairs of the said Patsanstha. In the premises order of this Court releasing said Sandeep Kulkarni will not be at par to these applicants. 6 Considering the rising tendency about the affairs of the institutions, which are involved in money transactions of accepting deposits from public at large and thereafter to avoid repayment of the cran61.11 -5- amount, this modus operandi is required to be deprecated somewhere and in such economical offences grant of pre-arrest bail is nothing but a play with the life of the small investors, who have invested their money earned by their sweat. 7 Considering the aspect that the entire record of Patsanstha is not available or concealed by the managing committee members and they can only give some trace out about availability of the said record, in that eventuality custodial interrogation of the applicants are very much required. Considering these aspect and the seriousness of the offence, no case to grant pre-arrest bail is made out. Applications do not have merit. Rejected. 8 In view of dismissal of criminal applications for anticipatory bail, criminal application Nos. 941 of 2011 and 940 of 2011 seeking production of documents do not survive for further consideration and the same stand dismissed accordingly. ( A.V. POTDAR. J.) rlj/