1 Cri.A.4760.11+2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4760 OF 2011 Dashrath S/o Tulshiram Wanve, Aged : 52 Years, Occup.: Agril., R/o Hanumanwadi, Manur, Tq. Shirur(Kasar) Dist. Beed. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENT. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4764 OF 2011 Dashrath S/o Tulshiram Wanve, Aged : 52 Years, Occup.: Agril., R/o Hanumanwadi, Manur, Tq. Shirur(Kasar) Dist. Beed. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENT. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4765 OF 2011 Dashrath S/o Tulshiram Wanve, Aged : 52 Years, Occup.: Agril., R/o Hanumanwadi, Manur, Tq. Shirur(Kasar) Dist. Beed. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.R.N.Dhorde,Advocate holding for Shri.V.R.Dhorde,Advocate for Applicant. Shri.B.V.Wagh, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. ... 2 Cri.A.4760.11+2 CORAM: R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 02.12.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. The Criminal Application No. 4760 of 2011 pertains to Crime No. 57 of 2011, registered with Dharur Police Station, District Beed, for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, related to "T;ksrhck 'ksrh eky iqjoBk o forj.k i.ku lgdkjh laLFkk e- xkoanjk rk- /kk:j ft- chM"(Hereinafter referred to "Jyotiba Society"). 3. The Criminal Application No. 4764 of 2011 pertains to Crime No. 56 of 2011, registered with Dharur Police Station, District Beed, for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, related to "txnack 'ksrh eky iqjoBk o forj.k i.ku lgdkjh laLFkk e- pkSaMh rk- /kk:j ft- chM"(Hereinafter referred to 3 Cri.A.4760.11+2 "Jagdamba Society"). 4. The Criminal Application No. 4765 of 2011 pertains to to Crime No. 50 of 2011, registered with Dindrud Police Station, District Beed, for the offence punishable under sections 409, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, related to "flanQ.kk 'ksrh eky iqjoBk o forj.k i.ku lgdkjh laLFkk e- nsfonfgQG rk- /kk:j ft- chM"(Hereinafter referred to "Sindhphana Society"). 5. These three applications are filed by the applicant-Dashrath S/o Tulshiram Wanve. Therefore, these applications can be disposed of by this common order. The three societies named above shall hereinafter be called as said societies. 6. The present applicant is Director of the "Beed District Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd. Beed. District Beed (Hereinafter referred to "Said Bank"). The Audit at the hands of Government Auditor was conducted in regard to each of the 4 Cri.A.4760.11+2 aforesaid societies and First Information Reports have been filed by the concerned Auditor with respective Police Stations, alleging therein that there has been embezzlement of the funds to large extent. From the Investigation papers, it is noticed that the said Bank of which present applicant is Director had granted loan to the aforesaid societies in the term of lakhs by resolution dated 08.07.2009. The proposals for loan was sent on 07.07.2009 and resolution was passed in the meeting of 08.07.2009. 7. Insofar as "Sindhphana Society" is concerned payment came to be made to Mr. Rajabhau Munde and his son Babri on 10.10.2009 by Mr. Jadhav, Cashier and Mr. Khade the concerned Officer, who were then attached to Parli branch of the said Bank, through which payment came to be made. 8. The applicant cannot dispute the fact that the loan came be granted to the aforesaid societies by resolution dated 08.07.2009. The 5 Cri.A.4760.11+2 said societies are not carrying out agricultural operation, and hence, they can be conveniently called as non-agricultural societies. As per the norms, as regards grant of loan by the said Bank, it was not permissible to grant loan to non- agricultural Societies. Despite this, loan came to be granted to the aforesaid societies in terms of Lakhs of rupees. The loan was sanctioned, on the basis of resolution dated 08.07.2009 as mentioned earlier. The Attendance Register undoubtedly goes to show that the present applicant attended the meeting of the "Loan Sanctioning Committee" on 08.07.2009. Apart from grant of loan the aforesaid societies loans have been granted to the various other applicants. The present applicant does not dispute his presence in said meeting of 08.07.2009. 9. According to the learned counsel Mr. Dhorde, the resolution to grant loan to the aforesaid societies was not at all discussed in the meeting of 08.07.20090 that is how the present applicant 6 Cri.A.4760.11+2 was not party to the said resolution. 10. Learned counsel Mr. Dhorde, had also submitted that aforesaid bank had instituted proceedings against the aforesaid societies for recovery of loans and some persons have also made payment. 11. According to the learned counsel Mr. Dhorde, the present applicant is in the custody from 28.09.2011 and the said arrest is in regard to all three FIRs. Learned Advocate for the applicant had submitted that applicant has undergone police custody remand for about 3/4 days. He has faced interrogation and thereafter he has been transferred to magisterial custody. According to him, investigation is practically complete, and therefore, there is no difficulty in granting regular bail to the present applicant. He submitted that the present applicant is respectable person in the society and there is no possibility of his fleeing away from the justice. 7 Cri.A.4760.11+2 . Mr. Dhorde, learned counsel also submitted that the present applicant be put to such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper. 12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. Wagh, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State had placed on record investigation papers and opposed the these applications. Mr. Wagh learned APP had submitted that investigation is in progress, and if today the present applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that the witnesses would not come forward to render information in respect of the various societies, as well as fraud in said bank. He had submitted that various societies as mentioned aforesaid are bogus and that is how the loan came to be sanctioned to the societies. He had drawn my attention to the statements of various persons( Their names are not disclosed on the ground of secrecy). So far as Sindhpana Society is concerned. They have stated that they had not 8 Cri.A.4760.11+2 applied for loan to the said society. They have indicated that they had no connection with the Sindhapna society and their signatures have been forged. Mr. Wagh, learned APP submitted that officers of the said Bank had prepared a note and in the said note was placed before the "Sanctioning Committee"consisting of Directors. By the said note it was indicated that the loan should not be granted to the aforesaid societies. It was also contended by the learned APP that if at all it was case of the applicant that resolution to grant loan to the aforesaid societies was not discussed, he did not register his protest about said grant of loan as per provisions of section 73(1AB) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.(For short said Act) 13. Learned APP further pointed out that as the applicant has not filed his protest as per the provisions of section 73 of the said Act,the applicant will have to bear the responsibility in 9 Cri.A.4760.11+2 regard to the loan sanctioned to the said Societies. Learned APP Mr. Wagh further submitted that on account of grant of loan to the aforesaid societies, the said bank is in financial difficulties. He pointed out that as many as 80 branches of the said bank are required to be closed and consequently there is financial crises in the said bank. He submitted that investigation will have to be carried out from various angles. He submitted that if at this stage the applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that it will interfere in the investigation and truth will not come before the Court. 14. I have considered the submissions advanced by the leaned counsels for the parties. The fact that the loan has been sanctioned in the meeting, of 08.07.2009 is not disputed by the applicant. The applicant has not disputed his presence therein I have perused the statements of witnesses. From the statements of witnesses certain facts are 10 Cri.A.4760.11+2 noticed. According to Mr. Kulkarni, Mr. Rajabhau Munde, a Chairman of the said bank instructed Mr. Kulkarni to insert the resolution in respect of sanction of loan to the aforesaid societies and to prepare the minutes of the meetings, dated 08.07.2009 accordingly to show that the loan was sanctioned to four societies. When it was pointed out by Mr. Kulkarni to Mr. Rajabhau Munde that discussion as regards sanctioning of loan to the aforesaid societies did not take place in the said meeting, it is not proper to incorporate the said resolution in the minutes of the said meeting, Mr. Rajabhau Munde compelled Mr. Kulkarni to do so. Mr. Kulkarni speaks in favour of the present applicant. The detailed investigation as regards information provided to the Police in regard to insertion of resolution in the meetings, which did not take place in the meeting dated 08.07.2009, is required and may have to be further investigated. 15. Mr. Kulkarni in his statement dated 11.08.2011 stated that after preparation of record 11 Cri.A.4760.11+2 so as to show resolution as regards to grant of loan to the aforesaid societies he had informed to all Directors about insertion of resolution to grant loans to aforesaid societies. It is pertinent to note that two Directors, namely, Mr. Sonwane and Mr. Hambarde have lodged their protest about grant of loan to the four societies and they have rendered specific statements that they were informed about passing of the resolution by Mr. Kulkarni. If some of the Directors did get information from Mr. Kulkarni, it is difficult to accept that present applicant was not knowing about passing of the said resolution. If this be so, it was necessary for the applicant to lodge protest as per the provisions of section 73(1AB) of the said Act. On account of non-lodgment of the said protest as per the provisions of section 73 of the said Act, the present applicant has to bare the responsibility about grant of loan to aforesaid societies. In view of the above, involvement of the present applicant in grant of loan can be said to have been made out as prima 12 Cri.A.4760.11+2 facie. 16. The statement of Mr. Jadhav, who was Cashier at Parli branch, as well as statement of Mr. Khade who was Officer at Parli branch of the said Bank, would go to show the manner in which money came to be withdrawn from Parli branch on tendering bearer cheques by Mr.Rajbhau Munde for an amount more than Rs. 200,00,000/-. The present applicant, in his capacity as Director must shoulder the responsibility for the said payment, which was ofcourse made beyond banking hours. It is also noticed that Mr. Rajbhau Munde has put the concerned staff under pressure, however, it is just difficult to accept that present applicant would not know anything about withdrawal of money. Mr. Jadhav had raised objection and pointed out that the bearer cheques do not bare account number. Despite this objection Mr. Jadhav was compelled to make payment. The applicant will have to bare responsibility as a Director. 13 Cri.A.4760.11+2 17. It is noticed that FIRs are filed in the month of June 2011 and thereafter investigation has started. It is seen that investigation is at the sensitive stage, and if at all present applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that the said investigation would be hampered. It is true that several persons, particularly whose names are kept secret have come forward to render their statements in the month of August 2011 and onwards. It is seen that Police will have to interrogate staff members at the head office as well as other branch offices of the said Bank. Police will have to carryout further investigation about aforesaid societies. It is stand of the police that these societies are bogus and are not in existence. Prima facie case is made out in respect of Sindhphana society, where at least seven to eight persons have rendered their statements whereby they have stated that their signatures are forged and record is created to show that they are members when in fact they have nothing to do with said society. Investigation on 14 Cri.A.4760.11+2 these lines will have to be conducted as regards other societies. 18. For the reasons mentioned above, I am inclined to observe that this is not stage when present applicant can be granted bail. It may be true that present applicant is in custody since September, 2011, however, that by itself is not sufficient to grant bail. For all these reason, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. 19. Learned Advocate Mr. Dhorde, had pointed out that Director by name Ramrao Pandharinath Aghav has been granted bail, in Crime Nos. 50 of 2011, 56 of 2011 and 57 of 2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 Majalgaon, who has been entertaining the said FIR and to whom the said Criminal cases are assigned. 20. Learned counsel Mr. Dhorde submitted on the principle of parity i.e on account of grant of bail to Mr. Ramrao Pandharinath Aghav, who also 15 Cri.A.4760.11+2 happens to be the Director and co-accused, his client be granted bail. I am not inclined to accept this argument on the point of principle of parity. Merely, because learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 Majalgaon has granted bail to co accused by itself is not sufficient to grant bail, particularly when this Court has considered the investigation papers which were produced before it and has expressed the view in the earlier part of the judgment. For the aforesaid reasons, the applications filed by the present applicant deserves to be rejected. Hence, the applications filed by Mr. Dashrath Tulshiram Wanve for bail are hereby rejected. Sd/- [ R.Y.GANOO, J. ] MTK