# IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3398 OF 2006 Dhanpat Banarsidas Agrawal .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Mr.M.S.Karnik, for applicant Ms.Rajeshree M. Gadhavi, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 26th September 2006 P.C. . The applicant is arrested on 26th July 2006 in connection with C.R.No.213 of 2006 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station. The C.R. alleges offences punishable under section 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 467 and 477A read with 34 I.P.C. It is not in dispute that Agrasen Nagari Sakahari Patpedhi, is a credit cooperative society registered under the provisions of the Coop.Societies Act, 1960. The applicant is the original accused No.1 and associated with this credit society as its Chairman of Board of Directors. 2. Allegation is that the applicant along with others has committed aforesaid offences inasmuch as misappropriation to the tune of Rs.3 Crores has taken place. In all 96 persons are involved as accused in this case. 3. The applicant upon being arrested had applied for bail before the trial court which application is rejected because in the opinion of the trial court, investigations are in progress and it would not be proper to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. 4. The matter was argued before on two occasions. Mr.Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for applicant submits that the applicant has his own version with regard to the subject transactions. He states that it is incorrect to state that all depositors have been taken for a ride and monies deposited by them were misappropriated as alleged. He submits that 60 loan proposals which are in issue cannot be said to be bogus, when the entire Board of Directors was considering such proposals. It is a collective action of the Board of Directors when loans were sanctioned and amounts disbursed. In any event, now an Administrator is appointed of the Credit Society. He has taken charge of all assets, records and books of accounts so also papers and documents. In such circumstances, further custodial interrogation is not necessary and no useful purpose will be served by continuing the detention of the applicant. 5. Mr.Mundargi, sought time to take instructions with regard to forwarding a proposal to the bank for clearing the liabilities in part and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the applicant. Mr.Mundargi states that as far as the residential property of the applicant is concerned, he is residing in a rented house at Bhole Colony, Nashik. However, he has two commercial premises which are in his possession and the same are of his ownership as well. Mr.Mundargi has produced copies of the sale deeds, pertaining to these premises. He submits that the applicant would have no objection if the Administrator were to take charge of these properties and dispose of the same to realise the amount which is due and payable to the society. Mr.Mundargi has produced one letter stating that a sum of Rs.40,82,612/- have been recovered by the Special Recovery Officer till date. The same is taken on record. 6. The learned A.P.P. has invited my attention to an affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Nashik City. The allegation is serious, according to I.O. and when the applicant and co-accused have misappropriated the amounts worth crores of rupees, so also the applicant being the Chairman and exclusively responsible for the day to day affairs, this is not a fit case for enlarging him on bail. More so, when he has executed an affidavit admitting his involvement in the crime. Further, if the applicant who is Chairman, if released at this stage of investigation, there is every likelihood of the same being obstructed or interfered with. 7. I have considered rival contentions. In my view, some thing could have been said in favour of prosecution but when the applicant has been detained in custody since 26th July 2006 and the Cooperation Department having acted and appointed an Administrator to take charge of the affairs who has seized and taken in his possession the records as above, then, there is no impediment even for considering the application at this stage. While it is true that some of the accused have been enlarged on anticipatory bail, role of the applicant as Chairman needs to be viewed differently. All documents, records, books are now in the custody of the Administrator who is managing the affairs. In such circumstances and when most of the papers related to the transaction including Minutes Book being seized by the I.O. further detention of the applicant would not serve any purpose. At the same time, stringent conditions can be imposed upon the applicant. In addition, his undertaking through his Counsel is also being accepted. In my view, that would protect interest of both sides, including that of the depositors. Hence, the following order:- i) The applicant arrested in connection with C.R.No.213 of 2006 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station shall be enlarged in the sum of Rs.One lakh with one or two local sureties in the like amount. ii) The bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant will remain present before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing once a week till the charge sheet is filed on every Friday between 4.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. iii) The order of bail will be given effect only after the applicant furnishes to the investigating officer the details about his place of residence and address where he proposes to stay after he is enlarged on bail. The applicant will not change his residential address thereafter till the conclusion of trial without prior intimation to the Investigating officer. iv) The bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. v) The applicant shall cooperate with the learned Trial Judge for expeditious disposal of the case. Any attempt by the applicant to delay the trial may be a ground for cancellation of bail. vi) Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. vii) Application is disposed of in above terms. viii) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. 8. The applicant has undertaken to this Court that the two shop premises, details of which are mentioned in the copies of sale deeds, would not be alienated, encumbered, parted with possession of or otherwise disposed off till further orders of the competent court/authority. The applicant further undertakes that possession of these shop premises would be handed over to the Administrator or such other authority as and when called for. The applicant further states that he would have no objection if these premises are disposed of and the proceeds appropriated or adjusted towards dues of the Credit Society. The applicant upon release shall file such undertaking in this Court within a period of 10 days thereof with copies to both I.O. and the Administrator. The undertaking to accompany copies of the sale deeds and other relevant documents. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)