{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2308 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2311 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2318 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2272 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2119 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2558 OF 2010 XXX --- XXX CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2308 OF 2010 Mahesh s/o Shantaram Patil APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2311 OF 2010 Mahesh s/o Namdeorao Gaikwad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2318 OF 2010 Amit s/o Sitaram Chavan APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT {2} WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2272 OF 2010 Trymbak Devram @ Deorao Marathe APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2119 OF 2010 Jagdish Sadashiv Pathak APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2558 OF 2010 Rajendra @ Rajesh Devendranath Varma APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Amol S.Sawant, Advocate for the applicants in Criminal applications No.2308/2010, 2311/2010, 2318/2010, 2119/2010 and 2558/2010 Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, Advocate for applicant in Criminal Application No.2272/2010 Mr. D.V.Tele, APP for respondent State Mr.Paranjape, Advocate for intervener ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th July 2010 {3} PER COURT: 1. By these criminal applications, all the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.121/2010 registered with Dhule City Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code with section 59 (1) of Bombay Stamps Act and u/s 73 (1) (K) (H) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 2. All these applicants, except applicant Rajendra in criminal application No.2558/2010, are protected by way of interim protection by this Court vide respective orders passed from time to time. 3. Today, when the matter came up for final hearing, heard learned counsel for respective applicants followed by learned APP and Mr.Paranjape, learned counsel for intervener, who is allowed to address the Court on his oral request. 4. As all these applications arise out of the same crime, they are being disposed of by this common order. 5. The present complaint came to be lodged by one Pradeep Waman Torane, Assistant Cooperative Officer, Dhule, on {4} 14.05.2010. It is alleged in the complaint that a cooperative society, Bhagyesh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Dhule was functioning till 14th July 2007. The last audit of the said society was conducted for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. It is alleged that on number of occasions, the office bearers of the Cooperative Department, had visited the said society and it was noticed that the said society was not functioning at its registered address. It is further alleged that, therefore, a notice dated 15.12.2009 was issued to all the 14 directors, who are managing committee members, as per the record available in the office of Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Dhule. By the said notice all the directors were directed to open the office of the said society and start the business of the same within a period of 8 days and to make arrangement for repayment of the deposits of the depositors. It is also alleged that inspite of the said notice, issued u/s 80 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Rules made thereunder, no response was received by the office of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dhule. Therefore, after obtaining necessary orders from the Executive Magistrate, Dhule, with the assistance of Police Inspector, the officers from Cooperative Department, visited the office of the said society and found lock to the premises at the registered address. The lock was broke opened and the material was inspected. The said material was taken in custody after making necessary Panchanama. It shows that the entire record is either in damage condition or not proper and hence no conclusion can be drawn from the same. As per the Audit {5} Report of the year 2006-07, the said society had accepted deposits of Rs.99,49,000/-. It is informed that the number of depositors in the said society are approximately 600. It is also informed that all the depositors are from lower strata of the society having very low income and they have deposited their hard owned money. 6. During the course of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is urged that the applicant Mahesh, in criminal application No.2308/2010 was serving in the said society as a Junior clerk for the period 2004 till 29.07.2007 and on 29.07.2007 he had tendered his resignation. However, no record is available to ascertain as to whether his resignation was accepted or not. It is further contended that the applicant Jagdish in criminal application No.2119/2010 was the founder member of the said society, however as he had submitted resignation on 28.06.2004 and it was accepted vide resolution No.4 dated 05.07.2004, he was ceased to be the director of the said society since 05.07.2004. It is also contended that the applicant Mahesh Gaikwad in criminal application No.2311/2010 was member of the Managing Committee, however he had submitted his resignation on 14.06.2006 and the same was accepted vide resolution No.3 dated 17.06.2006 and hence was also also ceased to be the director of the said society since 17.06.2006. It is further contended that the applicant Amit in criminal application No.2318/2010 was director of the said society and he had tendered his resignation on 15.07.2007 and the same was accepted vide resolution No.7 dated {6} 14.08.2007 and hence he was also not the director of the said society after 14.08.2007. It is contended on behalf of applicant Rajendra in criminal application No.2558/2010 that this applicant had submitted his resignation as member of managing committee on 18.06.2004 and the same was accepted vide resolution No.4 dated 05.07.2004 and thus, he had no concern with the said society after 05.07.2004. It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that the applicant Trymbak Marathe in criminal application No.2272/2010 has shifted to Dombivali after his retirement in the month of June 2005 and since then he has not participated in the regular administration of the said society and hence he cannot be held liable for any lapses / irregularities on the part of the said society. 7. It is worthy to be noted from the documents, which are made available to me that the said society was registered on 8 th June 2004 and it appears that some of the applicants have submitted their resignations within 10 or 12 days and the same were accepted within a week thereafter. However, the proceeding book of the said society is not available to corroborate the contentions of the applicants in respect of acceptance of their resignations. Admittedly, the alleged resignations are accepted under the signature of one Sandeep Kulkarni, Secretary of the said society. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for intervenor has submitted a list of directors of the said society, which he has received from the office of Deputy Registrar, {7} Cooperative Societies, Dhule under the Right to Information Act. The said information was submitted by the Secretary, Sandeep Kulkarni, under whose signature the resignations of the applicants are accepted. However the list submitted by the Cooperative Department indicates names of present applicants as Managing Committee members for the period 2005-2010, as per the information submitted by the Secretary, Sandeep Kulkarni. One fails to understand that if the resignations were accepted under the signature of the Secretary then how the same Secretary had furnished the information that all the applicants are directors of the said society for the period 2005-2010. In the premise, the submission on behalf of the applicants that they had tendered resignations and the same were accepted does not inspire confidence and creates doubt. Similarly, some of the applicants contended that they have tendered their resignations, however the record shows that the said society is closed down on or about 14.06.2007 and then question arose as to when the society itself was closed down, then how the resolutions accepting resignations came to be passed. Thus, there is room for doubt about the contentions of the applicants and about the authenticity of the resignations of the applicants. All these circumstances clearly indicate that not a single document, annexed with the applications, is free from doubt. Similar is the case of the applicant in criminal application No.2272/2010, who claims that in the year 2005, he has shifted to Dombivali, however even his name also appears in the list of the Members of the Managing Committee, {8} which was furnished by the Secretary of the said society. 8. The cases of the applicants require to be considered in the light of the fact that till 2007, as per the audit report of 2006-07, the society had collected amount of Rs.99,49,000/- from 600 depositors and not a single farthing has been repaid by the said society. Admittedly, the society is closed down in the year 2007 and no accounts are coming forth about the amount of deposits of almost Rs.1 crore and a question of hard owned money of 600 depositors is involved in this case and hence to disinter and unearth the truth, custodial interrogation of the present applicants is necessary. No case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 9. In the result, all the applications, which are devoid of any merit, stand rejected. Interim protection grated to respective applicants is hereby vacated. 10. Though it is prayed to stay this order for a period of two weeks yet considering the seriousness of the matter and the systematic fraud of the hard owned money of the 600 depositors, the stay is refused. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2308-10