{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3342 OF 2010 Shamkant Baburao Patwardhan & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. H.F.Pawar, Advocate for the applicants Mr. D.R.Kale, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 28th October 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.34/2009 registered at Tamalwadi police station, Dist-Osmanabad for an offence punishable u/s 403 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that vide order dated 27.08.2010, interim protection was granted in favour of applicant No.4 and was refused to applicants No.1 to 3. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by {2} learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. 4. It appears that the said offence is registered on the complaint of the Regional Manager, Maharashtra State Finance Corporation, Branch Latur on 21.05.2009. It is alleged in the complaint that applicants No.2 to 4, directors of a company, Mangesh Filtration Pvt. Ltd., had initially obtained loan of Rs.50 lacs on 02.11.1996 and further availed loan of Rs.15 lacs in the year 1997. Applicant No.1 is the guarantor to the said loan transaction. It is further alleged in the complaint that after availing the loan the said company functioned hardly for few months and after paying initial two/three installments, stopped repaying the same. It appears that for the recovery of the said loan notice u/s 29 of the MSFC Act was issued to the applicants, however the loan was not repaid. It is also alleged that when the officers of the Financial Corporation visited the factory site, they noticed that the machinery, which was mortgaged by the applicants as a security to the said loan, was removed from the factory premises. 5. It is to be noted that at the time of advancing the loan to the applicants, the machinery was mortgaged towards the security of the loan, and now the said machinery is removed from the factory premises, which prima facie indicates that to frustrate the claim of the Corporation, the applicants have disposed of the machinery and, thus this is a clear case of fraud. Considering the rising tendency of economic offences of availing loan and not to {3} repay the same, and instead to opt for civil litigation to prolong the recovery, which necessarily requires to be deprecated, and hence the Courts need not entertain applications of such persons. In the premise, application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3342-10