{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4400 OF 2009 1. Vitthal s/o Baliram Shendge Age-55 years, occ-Agril R/o Telgaon, Tq-Majalgaon Dist-Beed 2. Govind s/o Ramba Sargar Age-35 years, Occ-Agril R/o Ekdara, Tq-Majalgaon Dist-Beed 3. Usha w/o Vishwanath Borade Age-30 years, Occ-Agril & Household R/o Telgaon, Tq-Majalgaon Dist-Beed 4. Dyanoba s/o Sakharam Sajgane Age-32 years, Occ-Agril R/o Telgaon, Tq-Majalgaon, Dist-Beed 5. Dhondiram s/o Tukaram Soundar Age-45 years, Occ-Agril R/o Pungani, Tq-Majalgaon Dist-Beed 6. Sangita w/o Sundam Shendge Age-32 years, Occ-Agril & Household R/o Talgaon, Tq-Majalgaon Dist-Beed 7. Bansi s/o Annasaheb Raut Age-65 years, Occ-Retired R/o Roshnpuri- Tq-Majalgaon {2} Dist-Beed APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through police station, Majalgaon Dist-Beed 2. The Superintendent of Police Beed, Dist-Beed RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.D.Salunke h/f Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for applicants Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 13th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants No.1 to 6, who are ex-directors of Ekdara Vividh Karyakari Seva Society, and applicant No.7 who was the Secretary of the said society during the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2008, have approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.216/2009 registered with Majalgaon police station for an offence punishable u/s 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of {3} investigation carried out till today. 3. It appears that the compliant came to be lodged on 11.11.2009 alleging that the applicants have forwarded proposals for sanctioning of loan to the applicants in criminal application No. 4401/2009 to the Beed District Central Cooperative Bank. It is alleged that the said proposals were forwarded without ascertaining the fact that where they hold any lands in their name or not. It is further alleged that on the basis of the proposals forwarded by the applicants, the bank had sanctioned loan to the tune of Rs.65,90,400/- to the borrowers, without verifying the said proposals. Hence, it is alleged that the applicants have committed an offence in connivance of the bank managers and the borrowers. 4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicants that the role played by the present applicants is that of the postman only or as a forwarding agent, who have forwarded the proposals for loan. It is urged that the applicants are not expected to verify the proposals before forwarding the same to the bank. My attention is drawn towards the letter issued by the Branch Manager to the Regional Manager in respect of directions to verify the documents and then to sanction or disburse loans. It is also urged that admittedly, the loans are directly disbursed by the bank to the borrowers, who have withdrawn the same by using cheques. In the premise, there is no role of the applicants in the said process and hence it is urged that mere forwarding of the {4} proposals would not attract any offence alleged against the applicants. Hence, it is urged that the application be allowed. 5. Learned APP opposed the application as according to him the applicants are also responsible as they have forwarded the proposals without verifying the same. 6. Considering the rival submissions, it is required to consider as to whether the applicants are the loan sanctioning authorities of which the answer is in negative, secondly whether the loan was disbursed through the applicants of which also the answer is in negative and lastly whether the cheques of the loan granted were distributed through the applicants of which also the answer is in negative. If all the above three questions are answered in negative then as these applicants have not sanctioned the loan, nor the amount of loan was entrusted to them and hence it cannot be said that prima facie case is made against the applicant. In the premise, case is made out to exercise jurisdiction u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail 7. In the result, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with CR No.216/2009 registered with Majalgaon police station, they be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each and on executing PR bonds in the like amount. The applicants to {5} cooperate with the investigating agency and to attend Majalgaon police station as and when required by the concerned IO on written requisition. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4400-09