IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.623 OF 2008 Shri Ashok Gangwani .. Applicant Vs. Mr.Michael Poshan Furtado & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.P.Mundargi with Mr.Ganesh Gole for the Applicant. Mr.Prakash Naik i/by Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th August 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant. The applicant is the original complainant who filed a private complaint against the 1st to 4th respondents who are respectively the Chairman, General Manager, Assistant General Manager and Recovery Manager of a Co-operative bank. The applicant had obtained a cash credit facility from the said bank. The case of the applicant is that the other co-accused in the complaint dispossessed him from a shop premises. The case of the applicant is that he intimated the bank about dispossession and requested the bank to take possession of hypothecated stocks lying in the shop. It is stated that though officers of bank including the 4th respondent went to the shop for seizing the stock, they : 2 : failed to do so after talking to the other accused persons Shri Yogita Jaiswal and Shri T.R. Sharma. It is alleged that instead of taking over possession of the hypothecated stock, the 1st to 4th respondents accepted fixed deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- from the said two accused. In the complaint the applicant alleged commission of offences under section 384, 403, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 447, 506 read section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate passed an order under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The 1st to 4th respondents herein applied for grant of anticipatory bail. By order dated 07th February 2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail in favour of the said accused. By filing this application under section 482 of the said Code the applicant has challenged the said order dated 17th February 2008 granting anticipatory bail. 2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that looking to the serious allegations made against the concerned respondents this was not a case for grant of anticipatory bail as custodial interrogation of the said accused persons was required. He invited my attention to the letters dated 30th June 2007 and 04th September 2007 which are annexed : 3 : to this application. He submitted that though it was repeatedly brought to the notice of the concerned respondents that the applicant was dispossessed and the hypothecated goods were lying in the shop premises, no action was taken by the officers of the bank. He, therefore, submitted that the order granting anticipatory bail be quashed and set aside. 3. I have considered the submissions. As stated earlier, the applicant is the borrower of a co-operative bank who was admittedly granted cash credit facility to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- by the said bank. The 1st to 4th respondents are the Chairman, the General Manager, Assistant General Manager and Recovery Manager respectively of the said bank. While granting anticipatory bail, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that even according to the case of the prosecution, the said officers did not play any active role in alleged dispossession of the applicant and the said officers are not parties to the alleged fabrication of the documents. Considering these facts, anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the said respondents by imposing usual conditions regarding attendance at the concerned police station on three days. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the prosecution could not : 4 : make out a case that the custodial interrogation of the 1st to 4th respondents is required. The Investigating Officer has not alleged that the concerned accused have not co-operated in terms of conditions incorporated in the order granting anticipatory bail. No case for interference is made out. Application is rejected. (A.S.Oka,J)