* 1 * ABA.430.2011 29.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 430 OF 2011 SANDIP P. SULE ..... Applicant V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..... Respondent * * * * Mr. Manoj S. Mhambrey, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 29th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The applicant is an practising Chartered Accountant carrying on his profession in the name and style of M/s. S.P. Sule and Associates. It is a proprietary concern. He files this application for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. I-34 of 2011 registered with Pen Police Station, Alibag for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 465, 467, 471, 477, 409, 163 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. 2. The complainant is one Tushar Madhukar Kakde, an officer of The Pen Co-operative Urban Bank Limited. The other accused persons in the complaint are the former Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Directors and employees * 2 * ABA.430.2011 29.7.2011 of the Bank and the Bank’s Statutory Auditor. The complaint alleges that during the period 2008 to 24th September, 2010 all the accused persons conspired with each other to prepare false and bogus documents, lent money to fictitious persons to the extent of Rs.511.54 crores, withdrew a sum of Rs.25 crores from different Accounts of the bank, paid penalty of Rs.12.18 crore for encashing the government securities and withdrew a sum of Rs.50 crores credited to M/s. Skylark Builders. In this way, the total amount of loss caused to the bank is of Rs.598.72 crores. As regards the auditors, it is alleged that though the bank, on account of such illegal activities was running into losses, the auditors gave false reports stating that the bank was running in profit and thereby cheated the investors of the bank, the Co-operative Registrar as also the Reserve Bank of India. 3. The applicant herein has functioned as a concurrent auditor who is supposed to have audited seven branches of the bank. He claims that he was brought into the picture by one Sunil Jaithwar who was the statutory auditor for the bank. The applicant and Sunil Jaithwar claim to be friends since last more than 20 years. The applicant is under some obligation of Sunil Jaithwar. According to the applicant, in the year 2009 he was contacted by Sunil Jaithwar to act as concurrent auditor of the bank. He represented to the applicant that he being the statutory auditor, he himself cannot accept the work of concurrent audit, therefore, some other person was required to be * 3 * ABA.430.2011 29.7.2011 engaged. There was an understanding between the two that Sunil Jaithwar would do the entire work of concurrent auditing and also receive the fees therefor. The applicant therein was to be the auditor only on paper. The applicant claims to have received the net amount of professional fees of Rs. 5,44,243/- for doing concurrent auditing for the financial year 2008-09 and claims to have paid a sum of Rs.5,48,000/- to Sunil Jaithwar and his partner. Similarly, for the year 2009-10 he received a sum of Rs.7,06,421/- towards professional fees and paid an amount of Rs.7,06,605/- to Sunil Jaithwar and his partner. It is surprising that the applicant who was supposed to be helping Sunil Jaithwar by acting as an concurrent auditor has been willingly paying extra money to Sunil Jaithwar. Considering the allegations made in the complaint and the involvement of large amount of public money in the offence of fraud, it would be difficult to say that the applicant had no role whatsoever to play therein. The applicant has also been specifically named in the complaint. The learned APP points out that the police have also already filed chargesheet in the matter. The application hence is rejected. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]