{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1564 OF 2010 Suresh s/o Gyanchand Lodha Age-51 years, Occ-Agriculture & Business R/o Joshipura, Dheku Road, Amalner, Dist-Jalna APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Police Inspector, Amalner Police Station, Tq-Amalner, Dist-Dist RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for the applicant Mr. K.S.Patil, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 14th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.188/2009, registered with Amalner police station for an offence punishable u/s 408, 409, 420, 464, 467, 471, 477 (A) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. {2} 2. Interim protection has been granted to the applicant vide order dated 23rd April 2010. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Also perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 4. It appears that the said offence is registered on the complaint of Auditor, Purushottam Bhavsar on 12th November 2009 against in all 12 directors of Shreeraj Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Amalner. It is alleged in the complaint that the Members of the Managing Committee have sanctioned and disbursed loans to their relatives. Allegations against the present applicant are that he has sanctioned loan to 5 of his close relatives. It is alleged that the applicant was Chairman, Vice Chairman and also a Managing Committee Member of the said Patsanstha. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the loans granted to three persons at the behest of the applicant have been repaid before the audit was completed. It is contended that the loan of Rs.1,25,000/-granted to one Sunil Gyanchand, has been repaid to the tune of 50% and only 50% has remained to be paid. 6. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicant has {3} stood guarantor to the loan granted to 5 persons. who have contended that they have not received the said loan. 7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP in the light of the allegations in the complaint. 8. The documents, annexed along with the application, indicate that out of the 5 transactions, 3 loan transactions are closed, as repaid. Secondly, the society has filed dispute for recovery of the loan against two persons. To grant a loan cannot be said to be an offence punishable u/s 420. Learned APP has asserted that the Audit Report shows that there are 5 loan transactions in which the applicant has stood as a guarantor and there is complaint that the persons to whom the loan is shown to be granted, have not actually received the same. However, the learned APP has submitted that the Audit Report is silent as to whom the amount of the said loan is disbursed. In the premise, in absence of name of the person to whom the loan is granted, it is not possible to infer that the applicant is guilty of the said offence. 9. My attention is drawn to the common order dated 10th February 2010 in which on similar allegations, anticipatory bail is granted to the directors of the cooperative credit society. Admittedly, this case is squarely covered with the ratio laid down in the order dated 10.02.2010. {4} 10. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection granted to the applicant is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicant is at liberty to apply for regular bail after filing of the charge sheet. The applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1564-10