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. 8461 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8461 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8461 OF 2005 Mr.Kishor T. Mehta. ...Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondent S/Shri S.P. Kadam with B.L. Jagtap & Jagdish Choudhari for Applicant. Shri Ishwar S. Badiganny for the Complainant. Ms.S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 28, 2006 DATED : FEBRUARY 28, 2006 DATED : FEBRUARY 28, 2006 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- . Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State and learned Counsel for the complainant. . The applicant is seeking an anticipatory bail on account of apprehension that he is likely to be arrested in connection with an offence which is registered with EOW vide C.R.No.45/2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the IPC. 2. The said offence was registered on a complaint - 2 - filed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Moghaveera Co-operative Bank Ltd. initially against Vinit Kishor Mehta and Vinoy Amin. The applicant is a father of Vinit Kishore Mehta. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicant opened the current account with the Borivali Branch of the said Bank and operated it for about five days. The applicant was introduced to the bank by his son Dilip Mehta. Thereafter, on 26th February, 2004 with the help of the Branch Manager, Vinoy Amin, the said account was converted into an overdraft account against security of fixed deposits of Rs.5,50,000/- which were accounted to the bank illegally generated out of the funds of the said bank. Within 15 days thereafter, the balance on the foot of the OD Account stood at Rs.4,76,13,353,50ps. in the account as on 11th March, 2004. The allegation, therefore, is that though the applicant never applied for any overdraft facility above the limit of Rs.4,67,500/-, the said sanction to his overdraft account was granted by the Manager. Thereafter, further two accounts were opened and the applicant introduced these two accounts to their bank and thereafter Rs.35 lakhs each from the overdraft - 3 - accounts were siphoned off by Vinit Mehta to the overdraft credit facility account of the applicant. By this process of converting the bank funds to their own benefits, it is alleged that there was conspiracy whereby an amount of Rs.7.90 crores were misappropriated. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the business of his son Vinit Mehta who is carrying on business of dealing in sell and purchase of cars and also is carrying on construction business in partnership at Borivali. It is submitted that the applicant initially was not named in the FIR. But, subsequently the EOW has implicated him falsely. Further, it is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary since all the documents have been seized. It was further submitted that the proposal was given to the bank for the repayment of the amount which is allegedly due and payable to the bank. However, the said proposal was not accepted. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.15 lakhs has already been deposited. - 4 - 4. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant. From the averments made in the complaint, it is evident that the allegations against the present applicant is that he was co-conspirator and he had helped other two applicants in siphoning off the public funds to the tune of Rs.7.90 crores. The money, so far, has not been recovered. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is necessary. In my view, therefore, this is not a fit for grant of anticipatory bail. . The application is rejected. (V.M. Kanade, J.) (V.M. Kanade, J.) (V.M. Kanade, J.)