BA-712-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 712/2011 Dhonu Darshan Das .... Applicant V/s. The Sr.Inspector of Police, ... Respondents Pen Police Station and Anr. Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, i/b. Mr. K.S. Patil, for the Applicant. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 14 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Dr. Sharma, the learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Saste, the learned APP for the State. 2. This bail application is pending since quite sometime. On 1st July 2011, it was submitted by Dr.Sharma, that there is no material at all against the applicant in the entire charge sheet, so as to show his involvement in the alleged offences. As the learned A.P.P. prayed for time to verify this aspect, the matter was adjourned till 6th July 2011. On 6th July, 2011, the learned APP further sought time to verify this aspect, namely 'whether there is any material to show the involvement of the Applicant in the alleged offence'. 3. Today, instead of precisely addressing to this aspect, the learned APP has argued, at length, by reading over F.I.R. and by pointing out the master circular issued by R.B.I. prescribing the instructions and guidelines to the Primary Co-operative Banks. 4. The general submissions about the magnitude of the offence and about how the Board of Directors and other officers of the Bank of Pen Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. committed the fraud and misappropriation of huge amount of hundreds of crores, which have been advanced by the learned APP, in my opinion, indicate the inability of the learned APP to point out any specific material against the present applicant. BA-712-11.sxw 2 Dixit 5. The emphasis of the learned APP was on the fact that the Applicant has been Director of the said Bank at the material time and that 'since the fraud has taken place in the Bank, all the Directors including the Applicant would be criminally liable for the same'. Such a proposition cannot be accepted. The parameters for fixing criminal liability are well settled, and unless there is something to indicate that the alleged wrongs have been committed by the Applicant and other accused in furtherance of the common intention of all of them; or unless it is shown that the Applicant is one of the conspirators, he cannot be held liable, criminally, because he happens to be a Director. 6. A specific contention has been put forth on behalf of the Applicant that he has not attended even a single meeting of the Board of Directors and that he is not a party to any of the decisions taken by the Board of Directors. Today, a paper in which the name, contact number and a signature of the Applicant are contained, is shown to me by the learned APP in the course of arguments, as evidence suggesting that the Applicant had attended the meeting of the Board of Directors. The said paper does not show that the signature purporting to be of the Applicant, on the said document, is in token of his having attended meeting. Moreover, Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that this signature is not of the Applicant; and that a comparison of this signature with the other signatures of the Applicant which are on record, if made by the Court, would establish this . In my opinion, such exercise need not be undertaken at this stage. Even if it is held that this signature is of the Applicant, at best, the claim of the Applicant that he was not even aware of having been co-opted as Director in the said Bank may be disbelieved. On reading of the relevant part of the Charge-Sheet, as has been done by the learned APP, it becomes clear that there are specific allegations against certain directors and officers. The absence of such allegations against the Applicant, is significant. 7. The learned APP emphasises the huge magnitude of the offences. Indeed, the offence are of serious nature and the amount involved is huge, but the fact remains that for the purpose of considering the grant of Bail to the Applicant, the role attributed to the present Applicant in the alleged offence and the material on the basis of which it sought to be supported, needs consideration. The serious nature of the alleged offence can not be BA-712-11.sxw 3 Dixit used as a substitute for material showing involvement of a particular accused in the matter. 8. Today, I am shown the statement of a person recorded on 3.6.2011, as material implicating the Applicant. I find the statement wholly irrelevant in context of the allegation against the Applicant in the present case. 9. At this stage, the objection taken by the learned APP for entertaining the present Application may be mentioned. The Applicant was granted temporary bail by the Court of Sessions for a certain period. During the pendency of the present Bail Application, made before the expiry of that period, the interim bail period was extended from time to time, particularly because the adjournments were sought not by the Applicant, but by the prosecution. According to Mr. Saste, since the Applicant is already on bail, the Bail Application is not maintainable. I find no substance in this contention. The applicant is on bail only for a limited period till today. Since the Applicant is before this Court and is seeking bail, his Bail Application deserves to be considered on merits. The fact that he was granted temporary bail till today, would not come in the way of entertaining and dealing with the Bail Application. The suggestion that he should be first detained in custody and handcuffed, and only thereafter his prayer for bail be considered, cannot be accepted. The applicant has surrendered before this Court, and has to be be treated on par with a person who is detained in custody, for the purpose of consideration of the bail application. 10. The applicant has been in custody for 45 days. Considering the nature of material that is available against the Applicant, I am inclined to release him on bail. 11. The application is allowed. 12. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, with one surety in like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]