abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3546 OF 2007 Dr. B. Rajgopal .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.H.E. Palve for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant - Dr. B. Rajgopal, who is accused no.13 in Criminal Case No.OM/30/2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpalgaon, Baswant, Nashik, seeks bail. 3. The applicant was a director (member of the managing committee) of Jawahar Urban Co-operative Bank Limited (for short "the Bank"). It appears that liquidation proceedings against the Bank have since - 2 - commenced and a Liquidator has been appointed under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act by superseding the managing committee. 4. On 16th January 2000, the Bank issued an advertisement in which it offered to take fixed deposits at 15.5% with 1/2% extra for co-operative societies. The complainant - co-operative society invested an amount of Rs.2,20,00,000/- in the Bank by way of fixed deposit on or about 8th December 2000 for a period of 3 years. On due date, the fixed deposit was not paid on account of financial difficulty. After several attempts to recover the amount of fixed deposit from the Bank, the complainant society finally filed a private complaint with the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpalgaon, Baswant alleging therein that an offence was committed by its own directors, i.e. the directors of the society who had deposited money, as well as the Bank and its directors by not repaying the money. The Magistrate initially did not take cognizance of the complaint, but directed investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, the applicant was taken in custody. By an order dated 16th October 2007, his application for bail was rejected by the learned Adhoc Sessions Judge, Niphad. The applicant has therefore moved this Court for bail. - 3 - 5. By an order dated 26th October 2007, this Court granted interim bail to the applicant. The applicant now seeks confirmation of the said interim order of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant took me through the complaint filed by the complainant. In the complaint, it is alleged that the members of the managing committee of the complainant society ought not to have kept the money in fixed deposit with the co-operative bank. It is alleged that they kept this amount in the fixed deposit wrongly and have committed the offence. So far as the Bank is concerned, the allegation is that the Bank did not repay the deposit and thereby committed an offence. No specific role has been alleged to any of the directors of the Bank. It is settled principle of law that a director of a body corporate is not vicariously liable for criminal act of the corporate body or other directors unless there is some material on record to show the involvement of the concerned director. Perusal of the complaint does not disclose any involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime. On my query to the learned A.P.P. to show any material in respect of the alleged involvement of the applicant in the crime, he submitted that in spite of intimation sent to the investigating officer, he is - 4 - absent and there is no material on record to show that the applicant was in any way involved in the crime except the allegation that he was a director of the Bank. 7. In the circumstances, in my view, the applicant is entitled to bail. The interim bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 26th October 2007 is confirmed subject to the same terms and conditions. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)