IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 1393 OF 2009 Subhash Basavanappa Lature ........ Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ........Respondent. Mr. P. R. Arjunwadkar adv. For the Applicant Mr. Rajesh More APP. For the State CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 20th July, 2009. P. C.: 1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail by the applicant/accused in C. R.No. I-210/08 for offences under section 408, 409, 420 read with 34 of IPC. A complaint was lodged by Addl. Special Auditor, Co-op. (weaver), Solapur. Perusal of the complaint dated 20-5-2008 which led to the registration of the crime reveals that the present applicant was the chairman of Jayshree Magasvargiya Yantramag Audhyogice Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit for the period commencing from 20-6-2001 to 7-8-2002. The applicant is stated to have assumed the charge of the movables and immovables of the Sanstha from the earlier body. The society was put in liquidation and an administrator came to be appointed by order dated 1-2-2003 and as the applicant failed to deliver the properties to the administrator, the applicant has allegedly misappropriated the property worth Rs. more than 33 lacs. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the applicant is not a `Magasvargiya’ and hence could not have been even a member of the society leave aside being an office bearer. It is then submitted that at no point of time the applicant was the chairman of the society and the applicant has no concern whatsoever with the society. This court by an order dated 30-3-2009 directed the APP to produce the documents on record to show that the applicant is connected with the society and has worked as chairman. A mortgage deed executed by the present applicant in favour of the Governor of the State dated 15-11-2000 is placed on record which bears the name and signature of the present applicant. This document has also been relied upon by the Sessions court while rejecting the application filed by th present applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant tried to take support from the date of the mortgage deed, for contending that the mortgage deed has been executed prior to the date of handing over the charge i.e. 26-2-2001. This cannot be seen as a descripency in as much as it is possible that the applicant himself was the chairman in the earlier body as well. The mortgage deed is perused only with a view to test the correctness of the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that at no point of time the applicant had any connection with the society. However in the present application, the applicant has not explained anything in regard to the said mortgage deed. From perusal of the documents on record prima facie it is seen that the applicant is very much connected with the society and did hold the post of the chairman of the said society, On perusal of the documents, I am of the view that this is not a fit case wherein the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail. In the result the application is rejected. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)