1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application No. (ABA) No.306/2011 Sau. Kantabai Sadaram Chawre and another Vs. State of Maharashtra =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 21/09/2011. The applicants, who apprehend their arrest in Crime No.98/2011 of P. S. Umred, registered for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) have filed this application for anticipatory bail. 2] The respondent has filed reply resisting the application. 3] Heard learned Advocate Shri R.M Patwardhan for the applicants and learned APP Shri N. R. Rode for the respondent. 4] The allegation against the applicants is that during the period from 2004 to 2010, they have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 7,38,202.40 by preparing forged documents and bogus bills. 2 5] The applicant no.1 was previously the Chairman of Megaswargiya Pashu Va Pakshi Patan Sahkari Santha Ltd. Amgaon whereas the applicant no.2 who is the son of applicant no.1 is the present Chairman of the said society and he was Chairman also prior to the tenure of his mother. The Special Auditor has conducted the Audit of the said society for the period from 2004 to 2010 in view of the order dated 29.3.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.273/2010. The applicants have alleged that they were served with the said audit report on 21.7.2011, with requisition to file explanation in the form of “Durushti Ahwal” in terms of Section 82 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (said Act). As per Section 82 of the said Act, the society should be given three months time from the date of audit report to explain to the Registrar the defects or irregularities pointed out by the Auditor and to take steps to rectify the defects and remedy the irregularities and report to the Registrar the action taken by it thereon. The Registrar may also make an order directing the Society or its officers to take such action. Under Section 83 of the said Act, the Registrar has to hold an inquiry on his own or on the application of one third of members of the society, into the constitution, working and financial conditions of the society. By registered A. D. letters dated 1.8.2011 and 27.8.2011, the applicant no.2, through his Advocate has given explanations on the objections, irregularities, etc. mentioned in the Audit report and had prayed for fresh 3 audit to be conducted by another Auditor who should not be from Nagpur. But before completion of three months from the date of serving the auditor report for rectification of defects, etc., on the society, and without an inquiry by the Assistant Registrar to whom the applicant no.2 had addressed both letters giving explanation, the Special Auditor himself has lodged complaint dated 20.8.2011 with Umred Police Station. 6] It is therefore the grievance of the applicants, as argued by learned Advocate Shri R.M. Patwardhan, that penal action is sought to be taken by arresting the applicants without giving fair opportunity to explain. 7] The main objection to the anticipatory bail is on the ground that the Investigating Agency wants to seize the entire record of the society. In my view nothing can stop the police officers, in the exercise of their powers of investigation from taking search of the premises of the society or the house of the applicants and attach all the required documents. Appropriate directions to the applicants to hand over all the records and to co-operate with investigation can also be given by the Court. 8] Keeping in mind the factors and parameters envisaged by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of “Siddharam S. Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra” 4 [2011 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri)293), I am of the view that the discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be invoked in favour of the applicants. 9] The Audit report was served on the society on 21.7.2010. The applicants had all the time in the world to tamper with and manipulate the records, if they wanted. There is no substance in the grievance that the applicants may tamper with the records. 10] In the facts and circumstances of the case, as above, I hold that the applicants deserves to be granted pre-arrest bail with appropriate conditions. 11] Hence, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants in Crime No. 98/2011 registered by Umred P. S. for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467. 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. , they shall be released on interim bail upon execution of Personal Recognition Bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, each under following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall attend Umred P. S. on 26th September 2011 between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. with lunch break between 1.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. and shall cooperate with investigation by producing all the 5 documents in their custody or in the premises of the society, as required by the Investigating Officer and thereafter they shall attend the said P.S. as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer, to do so. (ii) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicants shall not tamper with the records of the society. (iv) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Application stands disposed of, accordingly. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE Ambulkar.