- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2539 OF 2010 Mr.Haji Bashirbhai Haji Yusuf Tirandaj .. Applicant vs The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.S.P.Nikam a/w Mr.U.B.Nighot for Applicant Mrs.V.R.Bhonsale APP for Respondent-State CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J (Vacation Court) DATED: 17th May, 2010 P.C. 1. This application for anticipatory bail is filed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 12.5.2010. The Junnar police have registered an offence against the applicant-accused for offences punishable under sections 406,409,420, 465, 466, 467,476,471,474, 201, 477(A) 420B of the Indian penal code. The offence is registered on the basis of an inquiry conducted by one Anirudh Sengaonkar, Special Auditor of Cooperative Societies. He has submitted a report on 25.2.2010 and an FIR was given by him on 28.4.2010. 2. The applicant is the founder of Cooperative society namely Shivner Nagri Path Sanstha, Junnar, Pune in 1993. The society had disbursed loans to number of persons. It is contended that the society - 2 - is having a turn over to the tune of Rs.20 crores per annum. It is further contended that till 31.3.2010 the society was conducting its work smoothly without any problem and the amount of alleged fraud of Rs.6,48,66,293/- is not correct. The audit report submitted by Mr.Sengaonkar is preliminary and is not final. It is submitted that till now the society has recovered Rs.3 crores and they are trying to recover the remaining amount. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is old and the case is based on documentary evidence so no custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. 3. The learned A.P.P. while opposing the application submitted that the police want to investigate in this matter and for that purpose they require the custody of the applicant. They have to obtain all the details about the loan disbursement and entries in the documents. Number of rules and regulations were violated while granting loans to various persons. The learned A.P.P has pointed out that the applicant accused is not at all cooperating with the police. - 3 - 4. I have gone through the proceedings of the matter and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Pune. while granting loans the prescribed limit was crossed by the society on some occasions. The charges of serious offences viz.forgery, falsification of accounts, cheating and criminal breach of trust are levelled. The police have also booked the applicant-accused under section 201 of the Indian Penal code. Hence, the demand of police for custodial interrogation is justified. It is necessary for the police to investigate on the basis of all the details in the documents. Yet the amount of Rs.3,48,66,000/- is to be recovered. The finding given by the learned Additional Sessions judge is well reasoned. 5. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Application is rejected. 6. On request of the learned counsel for the applicant, one week protection is given to the applicant accused to approach the Supreme Court. Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J - 4 -