(1) CRI. APPLN. 1526.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1526 OF 2010 Shaikh Mazhar S/o Shaikh Kayyum Age : 40 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed .. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, City Police Station, Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed (Copy to be served on A.G.P. of the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S.D. Kaldate, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 3RD MAY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1] Heard the learned counsel for the accused- applicant and the learned APP. The accused-applicant is Loan Disbursement Officer with the bank. His earlier Application no. 2659 of 2009 is rejected by order dated 7.8.2009 and this is second Application seeking pre-arrest bail. Mr. Thombre submits that, after rejection of the earlier Application, the owners of Deepak Provisions, Arati Automobiles, (2) CRI. APPLN. 1526.2010 Jaihind Dhaba and few others have cleared the loans. More than Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore) is deposited with the bank and very meager amount is now left for which the accused-applicant shall endeavour to recover. The accused-applicant has no role in the scheme of sanction of the loan. He has only verified the genuineness of the document. The other Officers in similarly placed situation are released on bail in terms of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Branch Manager Shri Chavan by his Application dated 6.7.2008 has accepted his involvement as the architect in the embezzlement in the bank. The applicant is ready to deposit the amount if directed by this Court with sufficient time to comply. 2] The learned APP submits that there are no change of circumstances to entertain the Application. It is a case of fabrication of the documents, advancement of the loans to the relatives. Deposit of the amount by itself will not be a criterion to release the accused-applicant on bail. 3] The status of the accused-applicant as Loan Disbursement Officer is not in controversy. The loans granted to Nitin Shelke and Deepak Shelke were indeed cleared substantially before dealing with the Application dated 7.8.2009. The payments made by Deepak Provisions as per the details are from May, (3) CRI. APPLN. 1526.2010 2009 to June, 2009, which is certainly prior to 7.8.2009 when the Application was rejected. The contention that the loan committee sanctioned and the accused-applicant had no role barring verification of the genuineness of the document, may be correct but as an Officer, he was mainly responsible to scrutinize, evaluate the loan papers vis-a-vis the title document of the parties as he is supposed to be expert in the field and not the Board of Directors. Any sanction by the Board of Directors by itself, will not throw the entire responsibility on them, obliterate the effect of disbursement fastened against the accused-applicant. The contention that the other Officers are released on bail is a fact, however, the role played by them and the role attributed and allegedly played by the present accused-applicant is not on identical pedestal. It is not a case of dereliction of the accused-applicant or a bonafide mistake. It is a massive and calculated act to put a lasso to the bank and determined attempt to put the bank to peril. The report of the Police Officer informs that one account holder Shaikh Nabioddin was debited with amount of Rs.20,000/- on 2.12.2003. This amount was credited in the Savings Bank account of the accused-applicant being account no.23/247. The accused-applicant has approved and sanctioned loan of Rs.5,00,000/- as against the Fixed Deposit receipts. Those accounts are not furnished by him. He is not making available (4) CRI. APPLN. 1526.2010 for interrogation. If the other Officers or the Office bearers were responsible, it was open for the accused-applicant to have pointed such irregularities at the shoulder of such Officials but he has successfully dodged the Investigator and the Auditor. Reply filed by the accused-applicant speaks volumes against him as to his conduct. The reference to the observations of the Reserve Bank of India by itself will not exonerate primarily the accused-applicant as it was the in-depth enquiry in the affairs that has highlighted the illegalities and calculated loss to the depositors and detrimental to the interest of the bank. No change of circumstances. 4] Criminal Application lacks merit, dismissed. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) arp