Suryakant Haribhau Linge v. The State of Maharashtra

Mr.Milind Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.S.N. Gawade, A.P.P. for the State. Mr.Umesh Mankapure, Advocate for orig. complainant. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2010 P.C.

#1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the two applicants both accused apprehending their arrest in the matter of C.R. No.I-59/2010 registered with Ulhasnagar police station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 417, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also punishable under Sections 73(FF), 146, 4(O)(P)(Q) of the 2 apln1768-10 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for certain violations and mainly the violation of the law with the office bearer/director of the co-operative society obtaining a loan from the co-operative credit society for himself or for his family members.

#2. As per the First Information Report lodged by the Govt. Auditor and as per the audit conducted for the period from 1st April, 2008 to March, 2009 of one Shri Siddhanath Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., situated at Ulhasnagar , certain irregularities and also certain offences punishable under IPC were revealed in as much as the present applicants availed the loans in their names and also in the names of the relatives of applicant No.1. For getting the loan in the name of applicant No.1 his some house property was shown as security. However, infact no such documents were obtained. For taking the loan in the name of applicant No.2 who is wife of applicant No.1 there is only one security obtained. All the said loan accounts were infact not operated in proper manner 3 apln1768-10 and there were outstanding dues and as on today as reported by learned Advocate for the respondent co-operative credit society, total outstanding dues as against the applicants and their son and other relatives are more than Rs.12 lakhs and odd including the interest and reportedly as submitted on behalf of the applicant by learned Advocate an amount of Rs. 5 Lakh has already been paid. It is not a question before this Court as to whether the amount has been paid or not but it is a question to be ascertained whether the applicants are entitled for the discretionary relief when prima facie allegations are against them as to using the money of the co- operative credit society for their own benefit for which they are not already entitled. Even for obtaining such loans no proper security documents were obtained and all the rules and regulations have been flouted. Even there is an allegation that one woman relative of applicant No.1 had obtained loan for purchase of the vehicle, however, no documents of said vehicle were obtained and kept in the loan papers. 4 apln1768-10 Apparently this is a matter in which the funds of the co- operative credit society have been misused for the own benefits of the applicants and their relatives. On the contrary being the trustees of such funds, much care was expected. However, it appears not to have been taken in the present matter. The conduct of the applicants do not entitle them for the discretionary relief of pre-arrest. Under these circumstances, present application for anticipatory bail stands rejected and accordingly disposed of. 5.apln1768-10 (A.R.JOSHI,J.)