(1) Criminal Application No. 3681 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3681 of 2011 1. Suresh s/o. Vinayak Kulkarni, Age : 67 years, Occupation : Pensioner. 2. Sau. Sunanda w/o. Suresh Kulkarni, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Household, Both R/o. Plot No. 53, Suyog Nagar, Wadi Bhorker Road, Deopur, Dhule. .. Applicants. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Police Inspector, Dhule Town Police Station, Dhule. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. D.R. Korde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ (2) Criminal Application No. 3681 of 2011 CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, and also heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant nos.1 and 2, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 121/2010, registered at Dhule Town Police Station, Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 471, 468 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Section 59(1) of Bombay Stamp Act, and Section 73 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 3. It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of complaint made by Pradeep s/o. Waman Torne, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dhule, on 14-5-2010. Applicant no.1, Suresh, is the Chairman of Bhagyesh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Dhule, whereas applicant no.2, Sunanda, is one of the Directors thereof. It is alleged that the applicants and other Directors and staff of the said Society, in (3) Criminal Application No. 3681 of 2011 collusion with each other, misappropriated an amount of Rs. 99,49,000/-. It is also alleged that the depositors did not get refund of their deposits, and therefore, aforesaid complaint was lodged by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dhule. It is also alleged that in pursuance of the said complaint, when the premises of the said Society was visited by the concerned officers of Cooperative Department, it was found locked and it is reported that the said premises is locked since last two years. 4. It also appears from the investigation papers that prior to initiation of criminal action, a show cause notice was issued to the applicants on 15-12-2009 by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dhule, specifically contending therein that the depositors had deposited huge sums to the tune of Rs. 94.01 Lakhs in the said Society, but although applicant no.1 was Chairman of the said Society, the said Chairman and other Directors have closed the activities of the said Society and allegedly misappropriated the said amount, and therefore, the applicant no.1 was called upon to comply with the requisition contained in the said notice, failing which, it was stated therein that criminal action would be initiated against them. However, it is canvassed that the applicant did not respond to the said show cause notice which ultimately culminated into filing of the (4) Criminal Application No. 3681 of 2011 criminal complaint, as mentioned herein above. 5. On the aforesaid background, it is significant to note that about 29 depositors have given statements in pursuance of the publication published by the investigating agency on 7-4-2011, stating that they had deposited huge sums in the said Society, but neither interest nor principal amount was refunded to them and it is also alleged therein that an amount of Rs. 47,00,000/- was misappropriated by the concerned officials i.e. Directors and Chairman of the said Society. 6. It is also pointed out that the Secretary of the said Society, namely, Sandeep s/o. Suresh Kulkarni i.e. son of applicant nos.1 and 2, was granted anticipatory bail by this Court, by order dated 19th November 2010, and while granting said anticipatory bail, certain conditions were imposed upon him, such as, to give attendance and produce all documents and accounts which were required by the Investigating Officer. However, it is submitted that the said conditions were not complied with by the said Secretary, Sandeep Kulkarni, and he neither gave attendance, as directed, nor submitted requisite record and accounts due to which further progress in the investigation was obstructed. It is also the grievance of the investigating agency, that interim anticipatory bail was granted to (5) Criminal Application No. 3681 of 2011 the applicants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, imposing conditions upon them to give attendance before concerned investigator and to cooperate in the investigation, but the applicants did not comply with the said conditions. In the said context, learned Adv. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, for the applicants, submitted that letters were given to the concerned investigator on 25-5-2011 by the applicants, conveying that they are ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation by giving attendance, and submitted, that the applicants had complied the said conditions. Apart from that, the fact remains that the progress in the investigation was hampered due to the absence of applicants. 7. Having comprehensive view of the matter, and considering the accusations made against the applicants and the nature and gravity thereof and the vital role attributed to the applicants in the alleged misappropriation and siphoning of the amount to the tune of Rs. 99,49,000/- of the depositors, which is a public money, it is apparently explicit that there is no possibility of false implication of the applicants in the alleged crime, and there is prima facie case against them, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants is inevitable and imperative for further progress in the investigation in proper perspective, and hence, present application deserves to be (6) Criminal Application No. 3681 of 2011 rejected. 8. In the result, present Criminal Application lacks merits, and therefore, stands dismissed, and is disposed of finally. 9. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/3681ka