1applns-4802-4803-09 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 4802 of 2009 Sanjay Hariram Chimnani .. Applicant. vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. with CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 4803/2009 Rajeev Hariram Chimnani ..Applicant. versus. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr A.P. Mundargi, Sr Counsel with Naveen Chomal, for the Applicant in Criminal Application No. 4802/2009 and Criminal Application No.4803/2009. Mrs M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P.for the State. Mrs Jyothi Menon i/by M. Janardhan for Syndicate Bank. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 18TH JUNE, 2010. 2applns-4802-4803-09 P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions at length on both these regular bail applications which are being disposed of by this common order as controversy involved in them is same, as to both the applicants approaching the complainant-intervener Bank for availing different loans, such as cash credit, home loan, vehicle loan etc. Allegedly various documents produced to secure loans were found to be fabricated. Even the same set of documents were used to avail different loans with the same Bank. It is also alleged that so far as vehicle loan is concerned, the vehicle was reportedly already purchased. However, fictitious documents were produced from the dealers pretending that the vehicle is proposed to be purchased. Apparently, on all these allegations it appears that unless there is somebody insider from the complainant bank, such type of practice of availing loan on fabricated documents and obtaining loan on the same set of documents could not have been materialized. However, this is the aspect which is for the investigating agency to be dealt with. 2. So far as the present applications are concerned, reportedly the total loan / advances and pecuniary advantage obtained by the applicants is more than Rs.85 lacs or so and present outstanding are probably more than Rs.1.64 crores. What is important in order to deal with the present application is that such huge loan amounts and advances were obtained by producing the fabricated documents and utilizing the said amounts for different purposes than for which such advances were sought. Reportedly, the applicants are in jail for more than one year and four 3applns-4802-4803-09 months and charge sheet has already been filed and charge is yet to be framed. 3. Considering the matter at hand involving the economic offence, in the opinion of this Court, it would not be in the fitness of the situation, though there is a sort of over coming from the applicants to give authentic and genuine security to the bank now, to release the applicants on bail when in the near proximity the pending case could be taken up for final hearing and can be disposed of. 4. During the arguments learned Senior Counsel Shri Mundgargi for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 4802/2009 submitted that an affidavit has been produced before the Court which has been sworn by the father of the applicants and in which about three shops / properties were detailed. It is further submitted that if the applicants are released on bail then in that event the applicants shall make all endeavours to dispose of said shop properties and to raise funds of about Rs.50 lacs as Government valuation and such amount could be utilized for satisfaction of the complainant Bank’s loans. On this submission learned Advocate Ms Jyothi Menon for the complainant-Bank pointed out that one of the properties which is mentioned in the affidavit is already mortgaged to the complainant-Bank, however, it is not authentic and genuine document. Without going into much as to the validity or otherwise of the said offer given by the father of the applicants, suffice it to say and mainly considering the amount of more than Rs.1.64 crore presently due, that the trial can be expedited without there being any relief in favour of the applicants. In the result the following order: ORDER: (a) Criminal Application Nos. 4802/2009 and 4803/2009 are hereby rejected. 4applns-4802-4803-09 (b) The Trial Court shall deal with the pending case as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same according to law preferably within nine months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. (c) Any observations 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. (A.R.JOSHI,J)