1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3837 OF 2009 Hemraj S/o.Gambhir Mahajan, Age-51 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Dahigaon, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.R.N.Dhorde, h/f. Mr.V.S.Kadam, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.B.J.Sonwane, learned APP for respondent State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 01/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. The present applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.64/2009, registered in Yawal Police Station of Dist. Jalgaon in connection with an offence registered u/s. 420, 467, 34 of IPC and u/s. 73(1)(a)(b) of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 2. Heard advocate for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. As the notice of the application was already served on the prosecution, papers of investigation till carried out are placed in my hand for my perusal. 2 3. Before considering the submissions advanced across the bar by both the sides, it is necessary to consider the facts which gave rise to file the present application. It appears from the record that on 26/06/2009, complaint came to be lodged in Yawal Police Station as stated earlier against the present applicant and 25 others on the count that during the audit of Dahigaon Vividh Vikas Karyakari Sah. Society Ltd., Dahigaon for the period 2006-08, fraud was detected of Rs.1,13,03,551/- for which the Chairman and Board of Directors as well as the employees of the said society were held liable by the said auditor who has carried out the audit of the said society. During the course of arguments across the bar and from the record made available, it is pointed out that the audit report is for the period 01/04/2006 till 31/03/2008. Out of this period, the present applicant has acted as a Chairman from 01/04/2006 till 20/06/2006, and in the second part from 31/06/2008 to 31/03/2009. From the record, it was brought to the notice that the elections of the said society were held in the year 2006. After the elections were over, meeting was called of the elected members of the society in the month of June 2006. In the said meeting, one Mrs. Aruna Patil was elected as a Chairman unopposed and was working as a Chairman till the end of December 2007. As for a short period of 3 months, the present applicant was holding the charge as an Acting Chairman in her absence. It is also brought to notice that even though the said audit period, Aruna Patil was not hold responsible by the Audit Department during the course of audit of the said society for these two financial years. It is also brought to the notice from the 3 proceeding books of the meeting held by the said society that after her election as a Chairman of the society to operate the bank accounts of the said society including to sign the cheques of loans to be disbursed to the members, the loan to be sanctioned to the members and to deal with the day to day activities of the operation of the bank account of the said society. From this point, it was brought to the notice that, during the said period of audit, the applicant was working as a Chairman for very small period and during that period, he has not to hold responsible for the fraud allegedly found in the said society. It is also urged across the bar that now the investigation is practically over. The offence is registered on the basis of the report of Auditor. At that time, relevant registers and documents were taken over and examined by the Auditor and now are in the custody of investigation officer. The statement of the material witnesses are recorded. In the premise, the custody of the accused is not required as he is arrested in connection with this offence on 29/10/2009 and still is in custody for more than a month, and remaining 24 persons were already released on bail. Hence this accused also be released on bail. 4. The application is opposed by the learned APP appearing for the State on the ground that this is a case in which there was fraud of crores in the society. It is also urged that considering the post held by the applicant and the status of the applicant in society and having control over the society, there is likelihood that he may tamper with the investigation process which is still not over. In the backdrop of 4 these submissions across the bar, examined the report of the auditor placed in my hand. This audit report is for the period 2006-08. At the end of the audit report, the auditor has fixed the liability of the staff and members of the society. It is to be noted that the members as well as the staff were individually as well as collectively held responsible for the alleged fraud noted by the auditor during the audit period. At the same time, it is very curious to note that no individual liability is saddled on this applicant and if it is so, and the registers already seized are earlier in the custody of the auditor and now in the custody of Investigation Officer, there shall not be any chance to tamper with this record as the statements of the witnesses are already recorded by the Investigation Officer. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. Hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. The applicant accused be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri.appl.3837-09