{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2050 OF 2009 Sayed Nasir Sayed Sultan Age-50 years, Occ-Business R/o Khandak, Balbhim Chowk, Beed, Dist-Beed APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Police Inspector, Beed City Police Station, Beed, Dist-Beed RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.D.Hon, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.42/2009 registered with Beed City Police station for an offence punishable u/s 409, 408, 406, 467, 468, 477-A, 109 and 420 r/w 34 of the IPC. {2} 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation, carried out till today and report of the auditor, on the basis of which the FIR came to be registered. 3. It is not disputed that the Audit report is of the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. It is also not disputed that the present applicant was the managing committee member of the said Cooperative Bank, of which the audit was done, for the relevant period. Perusal of the FIR discloses that the said offence came to be registered against in all 73 persons including present applicant. Out of the 73 accused, 10 are managing committee members of said cooperative bank and remaining are the borrowers. Charge / accusation against the applicant is that he, being a managing committee member, has granted loan to the employees of the bank to the tune of Rs.1,34,50,000/- and also extended term of loan to four borrowers to the tune of Rs.40,15,000/-. Out of these four borrowers, two borrowers have already repaid the loan obtained by them and so far as remaining two borrowers are concerned, it is stated that they have sufficient Fixed Deposits with the said bank. 4. Perusal of the audit report indicates that there is allegations against present applicant that he, being a member of the managing committee member, is a party to the sanctioning of loan to four borrowers, who failed to replay the same and hence he is arrayed as an accused. {3} 5. It is not disputed that the applicant was the member of the managing committee at the relevant time and also was a party to the sanctioning of loans to the said four borrowers. However, the fact remains that sufficient security was obtained from the said borrowers while disbursing loan to them and hence it cannot be said that the applicant had exercised pressure to sanction loan to the said borrowers without obtaining any security. In the premise, it is urged that, it cannot be said that there is any criminal intention on the part of the applicant. 6. Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that the applicant was the member of the managing committee, who has sanctioned loan to some borrowers and out of them some are defaulters. 7. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the audit report it appears that the only allegation against the present applicant is that he, being a member of the managing committee, was party to the sanctioning of loan to the said four borrowers. However, fact remains that out of the said four borrowers, two have already repaid their loans while two are yet to repay the entire loan. As the applicant was the member of the managing committee, it cannot be said that the act of sanctioning of loan to the said borrowers amounts to misappropriation of funds of the bank, as while disbursing loan to the said borrowers, appropriate security was obtained from them. In the premise it {4} cannot be said that by preparing false documents loans were sanctioned by the present applicant or at his instance. In the premise, it cannot be said that the applicant is involved in the alleged offence. Hence, case is made out to exercise discretion u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection granted on 26th June 2009, is extended for a period of 8 weeks, within mean time the applicant may apply for regular bail. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln2050-09 {5} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4173 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2669 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4174 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2668 OF 2009 Nishat Begum d/o Mazhar Ali & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.Mohasin Khan h/f Mr.T.W.Pathan, Advocate for applicants Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. At the request of learned APP, S.O. to 8th January 2010. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln2050-09