1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1167 OF 2009 Tushar V.Parekh .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.D.S.Manekar for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in MECR No.4 of 2008 of Charkop police station. The applicant and others have allegedly committed fraud on Jainil Co-operative Housing society and misappropriated its huge funds, and hence the crime has been registered against them for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120(b) of IPC. 3. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned he is a chartered accountant by profession. He was appointed as auditor by Jainil Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. He conducted its audit for the period from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2007. While conducting the 2 2 2 audit, the applicant committed several irregularities, illegalities and he was also negligent. The allegations against him as reflected in paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit read thus: "5. I say that the main role of applicant Tushar V.Parekh is that he was the auditor of the said society who audited the said society from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2008. I further say that the said auditor was never introduced to the other members of the committee. I say that the said Tushar Parekh has not seen the vouchers and has not prepared Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet of the said society in accordance with the rules of the Co-operative Societies Act and has not verified Cash Register maintained by the society. During the course of investigation, it transpired that Cash Register and other Registers were not properly maintained by the said society. The said applicant Tushar V. Parekh has audited the accounts of the said society from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2007 combinely. He has not maintained proper books of accounts under various heads. He has not informed any irregularities of the said society to the Registrar of Societies. During the course of investigation, it transpired that there are certain mistakes in Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account of the said society. He has not made out any loopholes to the notice of the Competent Authority. I say that the said applicant has misused the powers conferred upon him being auditor of the said society and thereby committed the offence." 4. I have perused the affidavit so also the report of the auditor (Exhibit-D). Though, prima facie, I am satisfied that the applicant committed several irregularities, illegalities, and he was negligent while carrying out the audit of the society, 3 3 3 at this stage, he being a professional auditor, it would not be possible to attribute any motive to the applicant. It is always open to the investigating agency to find out truth and exact role played by the applicant. In my opinion, for this purpose custody of the applicant is not necessary and it would be sufficient if directions are issued to him to report to the concerned police station regularly for sometime. Hence I pass the following order: . In the event of arrest the applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount subject to the conditions stipulated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station every alternate day till 5th May, 2009 between 10 am and 12 noon. (b) This order of anticipatory bail shall remain operative till filing of the charge-sheet. It is open to the applicant to appear before the concerned court and apply for regular bail after filing of the charge-sheet, and in that event the applicant shall not be arrested until his application for regular bail 4 4 4 is decided by the concerned court. (c) It is needless to express that the investigating agency can oppose the bail application, if during investigation, they find that the applicant has played any role in committing the alleged offence. . With these observations the application is disposed of. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)