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.3416 of 2008 Shri Shivaji Shankarrao Kale, .. Applicant Vs 1.State of Maharashtra, .. Respondents. & anr. Mr A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Advocate, with Mr M.S.Mohite, for the applicant. Mr J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 01/12/2008 DATE : 01/12/2008 DATE : 01/12/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr Yagnik, learned APP, for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.304 of 2008 of Sahakarnagar Police Station, Pune. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and 21 others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 406,409, 420 read with 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the applicant and 21 others, who, at the relevant time, were members of the Board of Directors of Ajit Co-operative Bank Ltd, have committed several illegalities/irregularities in banking operations and have caused huge loss of Rs.34 crores to the Bank. The illegalities/irregularities were noticed by the Special Auditor, Flying Squad, Division-II, Co-operative Societies, Pune. It was found that loans were sanctioned and disbursed to several undeserving persons, including the friends and relatives of the accused persons, without verifying their repayment capacity and the necessary documents. 4. The applicant was Chairman of the said Bank for the period between 30.5.2007 and 20.9.2007. The allegations against the present applicant are three-fold. Firstly, certain irregularities/ illegalities were committed while sanctioning loans in favour of his four family members. Secondly, he had taken an advance to the extent of Rs. one crore against the fixed deposit receipt of the deposit kept by another Co-operative Bank, of which he was Chairman, and thirdly, he purchased land bearing Gat no.90, admeasuring 2 hectors and 17 Ares, situated at village Kukdi, Taluka Khed, which was mortgaged by one Suvarna Misal as a security for the 17 loan accounts of Rs.5.51 crores, only for Rs.60 lacs when the worth of the land was more than four crores by taking advantage of his position as a Director of the Bank. As a result of the said transaction, the 17 loan accounts of Rs.5.51 crores, remained unsecured. The said 17 loan accounts are of the persons belonging to Rajesh Javlekar group. Suvarna Misal also belongs to the group of Rajesh Javlekar. 5. Insofar as the loan accounts in favour of the four family members of the applicant are concerned, there is no dispute that the entire loan amount has been re-paid. Similarly, the advance taken by the applicant, against the fixed deposit of Rs.one crore, has also been repaid by him. Insofar as the land bearing Gat No.90 is concerned, the applicant, on earlier occasion, filed an affidavit in the form of an undertaking stating that he was prepared to reconvey the said land to the Bank unconditionally. The applicant was present in the court on earlier occasions and he is present even today. Mr Mundargi, on the last date of hearing, submitted that the applicant would re-convey the said land to the Bank within a period of four weeks from the date of the last order, i.e. 14.10.08. He further submitted that the applicant would not claim the amount of Rs.60 lacs, which was paid by him to the Bank towards the said land. His statements were accepted. The applicant agreed to reconvey the land without accepting any liability and admitting the allegations made against him and without prejudice to his rights and contentions in these proceedings. The applicant has accordingly reconveyed the land to the Bank. The applicant’s statements made on affidavit and the undertaking were accepted. 6. In addition thereto, the applicant has filed two affidavits dated 1.12.2008. The first is his own affidavit and the other is of his wife’s affidavit giving the list of immovable properties standing in their names and stating that they shall not dispose them off during the pendency of these proceedings and the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Both the affidavits are taken on record and marked "X" and "X-1" for identification. The statements made on affidavits and the undertakings given therein are accepted 7. It is against the backdrop of these facts and circumstances, it would be improper and premature to analysis the material to discern the role of any individual at this stage. While considering the prayer for anticipatory bail in such matters, the Court has to bear in mind the complications involved in the investigation of the alleged offence. In the present case, the evidence consists mostly of documents, which are already in possession of the investigating agency. I am satisfied that there is no likelihood of the accused absconding or misusing liberty. It is well settled that an order of anticipatory bail, as observed in Gurubaksha Singh Vs. State of Punjab -AIR 1980 SC 1632, does not in any way directly or indirectly take away from police their right to investigate into charges made or to be made against the person released on bail. The usual conditions imposed while releasing the accused on anticipatory bail, like cooperating the police in investigation and not to tamper the witnesses, sufficiently take care, coupled with the fact that if the police require the custody at any stage, they can apply to the court for that purpose. Merely because prima facie case is made out against the applicant, that itself cannot be a ground for rejecting the application for anticipatory bail. In the case, like one in hand, what is important is to see whether public money can be secured by imposing further conditions on the applicant. 8. Having considered the affidavits filed by the applicant and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant this application for anticipatory bail. Hence the following order. . In the event of arrest, the applicant - Shivaji Shankarrao Kale- to be released on bail in C.R.No.304 of 2008 of Sahakarnagar Police Station, Pune, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to condition that he shall report to the Economic Offences Wing & Cyber Crime, Crime Branch, Pune City, Pune, on every Saturday between 9 and 10 am for a period of 90 days from today or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. . 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 without being influenced by the observations made in this order. . The application is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)