1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4551 OF 2008 Mr. Vaibhav Vijay Patil ...... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ....... Respondent. ------ Mr. Tushar Sonawane for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. ----- ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4552 OF 2008 Mr. Tushar Rangnath Patil & Anr. ...... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ....... Respondent. ------ Mr. Tushar Sonawane for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4513 OF 2008 Sau Sangeeta Sanjay Deore ...... Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. 2 ------ Mr. Anilkumar K. Patil for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More APP for the State. ----- ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4514 OF 2008 Sanjay Daulatrao Deore ...... Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. ------ Mr. Anilkumar K. Patil for the applicant. Mr Rajesh More, APP for the State. ------- ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4662 OF 2008 Bhushan Trimbak Ranade ..... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. ------ Mrs. Manjula Rao,Senior Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. ------ CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 21st January, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 3 2. A complaint has been filed against the present applicants, most of whom are borrowers who borrowed money from Shriram Sahakari Bank Limited which is a Co- operative Bank. The complaint was filed that the Directors and the employees of the Bank had disbursed loans without following the procedure prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and the bye-laws for disbursing loans. It is alleged that no security or collateral security was taken by the bank while disbursing these loans and, as a result, a complaint was lodged against 149 borrowers and 17 Directors and number of employees. Liquidation proceedings have already been initiated against the said bank. Some of the borrowers and one Manager have filed applications for anticipatory bail. 3. Counsel appearing for the applicants in application Nos.4551/2008 and 4552/2008 has submitted that one of the depositors who has Fixed Deposit of Rs 75 lacs has agreed to keep his Fixed Deposit as a security towards the said loan. Counsel for the applicants in Criminal Application No.4513/2008 and 4514/2008 has submitted that, their flat has already been attached and sold towards the satisfaction of the loan amount. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant - Manager in Criminal Application No.4662 of 2008 submitted that the Manager has followed the instructions given by the Directors and, therefore, he is not liable in any manner for the offence committed by the Directors. 4. In my view, it is not possible to accept the submissions 4 made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. In view of the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, in case of bank which is under liquidation, Fixed Deposit Receipt cannot be treated as a security for the loan disbursed to the borrower and, in this case, the liquidation proceedings have already begun. Counsel appearing on behalf of the borrowers have submitted that they are willing to give additional security for the purpose of securing loan which has been given by the bank to them. Applications are pending for quite some time and, therefore, these applications cannot be adjourned for any further period. However, two weeks' time is given to the applicants to give collateral or other security for the purpose of securing loan disbursed by the Bank. If such a security is given within a period of two weeks, applicants may be released on bail by the Magistrate before whom they shall surrender after two weeks. Applicants shall surrender before the Magistrate on 11/2/2009. If no security is given by the applicants, their applications may be considered on merits and in accordance with law. The Magistrate shall also consider the fact that all other Directors have already been released on bail. 5. Applications for anticipatory bail are accordingly dismissed except the Criminal Application No.4513/2008. Interim order to continue till 11/2/2009. 6. In Criminal Application No.4513 of 2008, applicant No.2 5 Sau Sangeeta Sanjay Deore, being a lady, in my view, would be entitled to get anticipatory bail. Her husband is also one of the applicants. It is not necessary that both husband and wife are denied anticipatory bail. Under these circumstances, applicant Sau Sangeeta Sanjay Deore in Criminal Application No.4513 of 2008, in the event of her arrest in connection with C.R. No. 152 of 2006 and C.R. No.47 of 2008 registered with Panchavati Police Station, be released on bail in the sum of Rs 5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. She shall co-operate with the police. 7. Applications are accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)