1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1347 OF 2010 Harshad Ashok Kolhe & ors. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri V.D. Sapkal, Advocate holding for Shri S.V. Natu, Advocate for the applicants Shri P.P. More, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 15th April, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard Mr. V.D. Sapkal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mr. P.P. More, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicants, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest under C.R. No. 47/2010, registered at Jillha Peth Police Station, Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by one Mr. Balkrushna Onkar Salunkhe C.E.O., of Dharwarsha Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Jalgaon on 22.2.2010, alleging that, the said Society had orally agreed to appoint the applicant No.1 Harhsad Ashok Kolhe as Recovery Agent, but since the said applicant No.1 did not execute an agreement therefor, he was not appointed as Recovery Agent of the said Society. It is also alleged that, although the applicant No.1 was not appointed as Recovery Agent, he obtained the receipt book of the said Society bearing No.601 to 700 and by misusing some receipts therefrom i.e. Receipt Nos.658, 659, 661 and 662, he collected an amount of Rs.36,05,000/- from the borrowers of the Society i.e. applicant Nos. 2 and 3 herein as well as one Bhagwat Keshav Patil and Rupali Jayant Yeole respectively. It is also alleged that, the applicant No.1 sent a letter dated 14.5.2010 to the Chairman of the said Society and admitted the said fact in paragraph No.5 of the said letter and stated that an amount of rs.36,05,000/- was collected form the borrowers and same was lying with him. He further admitted that he issued receipt Nos.658 to 662 to the borrowers of the said Society. It is further alleged that, the applicant No.1 has not deposited the amount with the said Society which was collected by him unauthorisedly. It is also alleged that, the applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of applicant No.1 who are the borrowers of the said Society, who have joined hands with applicant No.1 to get the 3 loan amount outstanding against them cleared without making any payment to the said Society in that respect. 4. On the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant No.1 had issued notice to the said Society on 14.5.2008 and pointed out the real facts therein. The learned counsel for the applicants also canvassed that the Society has obtained the recovery certificate against the applicant No.3 Lilawati on 26.12.2007 and, therefore, on the face of the said position, there is no substance in the allegations against the applicant No.3. It is also canvassed that, the said Society has also filed the recovery proceedings against the applicant No.2 Ashok Pundlik Kolhe for the recovery of amount of Rs.23.94,185/- and same is still pending and, therefore also, it is submitted that there is no substance in the allegations made against applicant No.2 Ashok Pundlik Kolhe. As regards applicant No.1, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that, it is in fact a civil dispute and Society has filed a false case against the applicant No.1 with a view deprive the applicant No.1 of his commission. 5. In the said context, learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the aspect that when the Special Recovery Officer went to the applicant No.3 Lilawati for the recovery of the amount stated in the recovery certificate, the applicant No.3 issued a letter dated 4 17.7.2008 and took the shield that she has paid the loan amount to Recovery Agent i.e. applicant No.1 Harshad and the Receipt No. 659 was issued to her in that respect. Accordingly, learned A.P.P. submitted that, the applicant Nos.2 and 3 are in collusion with applicant No.1 who are closely related. The learned A.P.P. also invited my attention to the fact that the statements of the witnesses have been recorded during the course of investigation and statement of Bhagwat Patil apparently discloses the complicity of the applicants in the crime. 6. On perusal of investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by learned respective counsel for the parties, apparently, I am of the view that, there is no false implication of the applicant Nos.1 to 3 in the alleged crime and the custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary for the further investigation in proper perspective. It also appears that the applicant Nos.2 and 3 are in collusion with applicant No.1 and the investigating agency has collected the material information and, therefore, apparently, there is prima facie case against the applicants herein. However, the further vital and important material is required to be collected during the course of custodial interrogation of the applicants to connect them with the crime. 7. Hence, considering the nature and gravity of the offence 5 and huge amount involved therein to the tune of Rs.36,05,000/-, it is imperative that investigating agency is required to be permitted to carry out the further investigation without any impediment and, therefore, it is not desirable to allow the present application and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 7. In the result, present application being sans merits, same stands dismissed. 8. Needless to say that, the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri1347.10