1 Cri.A.2849.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2849 OF 2011 Sujata W/o Pranay Vispute, R/o 96/D-2 A-1 Building, Dixit Garden, Navi Peth, Pune 411 030. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri. Sandeep S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant. Shri. B.J.Sonwane, A.P.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 15TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for anticipatory bail, in Crime NO. 01 of 2011, registered with Zillapeth Police Station, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon for the offence punishable under sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 471(a), 477(a), 201, and 120(b) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Papers of investigation were made available by APP. Both sides are heard. 2 Cri.A.2849.11 2. Crime is registered on the basis of report given by Auditor, after completing audit of the account of Tapi Sahakari Pat Pedhi Ltd., Chopda, for the years 2007-2009. The Auditor, in the audit noticed that rules, by- laws, procedure were not followed by Board of Directors, employees, borrowers, guarantors etc. and in collusion with each other they have misappropriated an amount of Rs.8.5 crores. Modes operandi is described that there was no security to huge loan, loan was given to Directors and their relatives also and also to persons who were friends of the Directors. There is allegation against present applicant and her husband Pranay that loan of around Rupees one Crores was given to Tapi Soft Info Pvt. Ltd, when there was no security. There is allegation that when as per rules it was not permissible to allow the wife to sign as guarantor, but the wife is accepted as guarantor. As there was no security, there was no possibility of recovery of the amount. 3. APP submitted that there is one circumstance that application for loan was obtained subsequently, whereas loan was sanctioned prior to that date. Today, Advocate for the applicant produced certificate issued by Tapi Sahakari Pat Pedhi to show that on 18.05.2011, Pranaya, husband of the applicant made arrangement to deposit Rs.35,00,000/- in the loan account. When query was made whether Pranay is arrested, he submitted 3 Cri.A.2849.11 that he has no information whether Pranya is arrested or not. He submitted that applicant is household wife, so relief can be granted to her. In these days, relief cannot be granted to ladies only on the ground that they are household wife. Ultimately, benefits come to the family of which wife is member and it needs to be presumed that she knows everything about the transactions. 4. It was submitted that certificate is obtained under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act in respect of loan and so criminal action is unwarranted. This submission is not acceptable. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, criminal action is possible. In view of the aforesaid circumstance, this Court holds that it is not fit case for granting anticipatory bail. So, application stands rejected. Sd/- [ T.V.NALAWADE, J.] MTK