1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1828/2009 (Mohanlal Shankarlal Lohiya vs. State of Maharashtra ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr. M I Sheikhani / H M Mohta , Advs. for applicant Mr D B Patel, Adv. for Respondent *** C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 06 th OCTOBER ,2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this application, the applicant is praying for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 28/2009 reported at Ramdaspeth Police Station Akola for offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 408, 409, 465, 468 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 146 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 3. According to the applicant he was a Director of Vidarbha Cooperative Pat Sanstha Akola Limited during the period from 1986 to 1996. However, he had stopped to work as such inasmuch as he had resigned from the post. An offence being Crime No. 6/2005 was reported on 8.1.2005 under sections 406, 420 read with section 34 of the IPC on the basis of report of one Rambhau Taide and others ( depositors and members of the Pat-sanstha) at Ramdaspeth, Akola Police Station. In that case, the Police have filed charge- sheet against the applicant and other Directors and Regular Criminal Case No. 1126/2005 is pending before CJM Court, Akola. Another report was lodged with PSO Civil Lines, Akola in respect of the same offence by another depositor and case is pending as Regular Criminal Case No.44/2006 at CJM Court, Akola. Chandrashekhar Sakharpohe, Special Auditor also lodged a complain at Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola on 5.2.2009 alleging misappropriation of amounts in Vidarbha Credit Co-op. Society against the Directors which 2 resulted into registering a crime being Crime No.28/2009 for offence punishable u/ss. 420, 406, 408, 409, 465, 468 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 146 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 4. It appears that earlier the applicant and others had moved learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola who, by order dated 29.4.2009 rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail by a reasoned order; the copy of which is annexed with the application. 5. Learned APP objected grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that Special Auditor has prepared a report on the basis of which investigation would be required in respect of serious accusations u/ss. 420, 406, 408, 409, 465, 468 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 146 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and that irregularities and illegalities which have been committed by the applicant and others is required to be investigated. It is also contended that the applicant has been absconding since the date of registration of crime, therefore, serious prejudice would be caused in the matter of investigation into the alleged defalcation of amount of Rs. 1,73,53,414.19 paise regarding loans advanced to various borrowers without any heed to recovering that amounts advanced by way of loans with interest. Thus, according to to respondent, the illegal activities committed are required to be investigated on the basis of complaint lodged by Auditor of the Cooperative Society and that the custody of the applicant is necessary. 5. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that there can not be second FIR in respect of same cognizable offence of same incident or occurrence. Reference is made to the ruling in T.T.Antony vs.State of Kerala (2001 Cri.L.J. 3329) , wherein the Apex Court observed that apart from vague information by phone call or cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station in the First Information Report . FIR postulated by section 154 of the Cr.P.C. All other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable 3 offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under section 162 of Cr.P.C. No such information/ statement can properly be treated as FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of Cr.P.C. Be that as it may; in the facts and circumstances wherein it is alleged that several depositors have been duped by a Cooperative society there may be multiple complaints by depositors. Without expressing any opinion on merits of possibility of such multiple number of complaints and also requirement to investigate into them, I think since the order u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is temporary in its duration, for the reason that Regular Court is expected to consider the requirement of the investigation after perusal of case diary as also appropriate application with prayer for remand in such cases, I think regular Court cannot be by-passed particularly when the Apex Court in the case of Salauddin Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1996 SC 1042) clarified that protection u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is for limited period and regular Court has to be moved for bail which can get sufficient time to decide the bail application upon examining the material collected during the investigation. Therefore, following order is passed to enable the applicant to move the regular Court and to apply for bail, on merits. In the event of arrest of the applicant on or before 15th October 2009 in connection with Crime No. 28/2009 reported at Ramdaspeth Police Station Akola for offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 408, 409, 465, 468 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 146 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, he shall be released upon executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more surety in the equal amount. This order of temporary anticipatory bail is granted until 15.10.2009 to enable the applicant to surrender before regular Court and apply for regular bail on or before 15.10.2009. The Court below shall allow the applicant to remain on interim bail, until it may decide the 4 regular application for bail on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by observations made herein-above. The anticipatory bail granted above, shall stand expire automatically on 15.10.2009. Application disposed of. Humdast allowed. JUDGE. sahare