Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
(1)907aba909.24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD907 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 909 OF 2024BALKISHAN PANDURANGJI MUNDADA….Applicant VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…..RespondentsMr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jay Veer,Advocate and Mr. Jojagire M. Salve, Advocate i/b Mr. Devang R.Deshmukh, Advocate for applicantMr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the respondents/StateANDANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 907 OF 2024GANGADHAR JAWAHARLALJI DHOOT.....ApplicantVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER.....RespondentsMr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jay Veer,Advocate and Mr. Jojagire M. Salve, Advocate i/b Mr. Devang R.Deshmukh, Advocate for applicantMr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the respondents/StateANDANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 906 OF 2024PANDURANG MATHURALAL KACHOLIYA.....Petitioner VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER.....Respondent 1 of 15
Legal Reasoning
(2)907aba909.24Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jay Veer,Advocate and Mr. Jojagire M. Salve, Advocate i/b Mr. Devang R.Deshmukh, Advocate for applicantMr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the respondents/StateANDANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 902 OF 2024OMPRAKASH KANHAYALALJI MUNDADA.....ApplicantVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.....RespondentMr. Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate for the applicantMr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the respondents/StateANDANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 901 OF 2024BALAPRASAD BANSILAL BIDADA.....ApplicantVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER.....RespondentsMr. Vinod D. Gobharle, Advocate for the applicantMr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the respondents/StateANDANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 900 OF 2024SATYANARAYAN BANSILAL HEDDA.....ApplicantVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.....Respondent2 of 15 (3)907aba909.24Mr. Kishor J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for the applicantMr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the respondents/StateANDANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 899 OF 2024SATYANARAYAN PANNALALJI LADDA.....ApplicantsVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER.....RespondentsMr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for the applicantMr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the respondents/StateANDANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 897 OF 2024GOVIND GOPALDAS KOTHARI.....ApplicantVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER.....RespondentsMr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the respondents/StateANDANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 918 OF 2024KAMLAKAR RAJARAMPANT KULKARNI.....ApplicantVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.....RespondentsAdvocate Tiwar, h/f Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for theapplicantMr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the respondents/State3 of 15 (4)907aba909.24ANDANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 913 OF 2024GOVIND LAXMINARAYAN PAREKH.....ApplicantVERSUSTHE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANOTHER.....RespondentsMr. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate a/w Mr. S. R. Mantri,Advocate for the applicant Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the respondents/StateANDANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 910 OF 2024GOKULDAS MAGANLAL CHANDAK.....ApplicantVERSUSTHE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANOTHER.....RespondentsMr. P. P. More, Advocate for the applicantMr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the respondents/StateCORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:13th AUGUST, 2024P. C. 1.Since these applications are arising out of the samecrime, the applications are taken together.4 of 15 (5)907aba909.242.The informant lodged the information with GandhiChowk Police Station, Dist. Latur on 09-04-2024 bearing CrimeNo. 0234/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406,420, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code andSection 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors(In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The present applicantsare shown as accused Nos. 13 to 23.3.It is stated in the information that the informanthappened to be a Tax Consultant in Latur. For his financialplanning in the old age, he deposited an amount in oneRajasthani Multi Credit Co-operative Society, Parali Vaijinath inits branch at Latur. Accused Nos. 1 to 12 are said to be Directors,accused No.13 to 23-present applicants are said to be membersof the Local Advisory Board. He invested the said amountbecause of these accused persons. He was induced by all theaccused persons and he was assured that he will get betterreturns, if the amount is deposited in the society. Because of thisinducement, he deposited his amount by withdrawing the5 of 15 (6)907aba909.24amount from other banks, in various FDRs. On 21-12-2023 hemade an application seeking refund of amount deposited infixed deposits. On his application, he received phone call fromthe members of the Managing Committee of the societyinforming that the society is not in a position to refund theamount for the present and requested him to purchase theproperties which are purchased out of the money of the society.On this he lodged the complaint stating that the Members ofBoard of Directors have utilized the bank amount for their ownpurpose and they have also spent an amount on advertisementetc. Some amount is irresponsibly donated for public purpose.Therefore, society is running into loss.4.Present applicants are shown to be accused in thesaid offence who are said to be Local Advisors. Apprehendingarrest these applicants approached the learned Sessions Judgeby filing individual applications. Initially interim relief wasgranted by protecting applicants from the arrest. Ultimately byorder dated 29-05-2024, applications came to be rejected by the6 of 15 (7)907aba909.24learned Judge. The orders are passed separately. The applicants,are thus before this court.5.Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Deshmukh inApplication No.906/2024, 907/2024 and 909/2024 submits thatthe period stated of the offence is from 11-08-2022 till 13-11-2023. Whereas information is lodged on 09-04-2024. Thus,there is delay in lodging the FIR. Looking to the contents of theFIR no specific role is alleged or attributed to these applicants.Society is from Parali having its branch at Latur. The applicantsare neither Directors nor the persons responsible for the affairsof the society in any capacity. They are only stated to be LocalAdvisors. There is no such post as such in the bylaws of thesociety or even under the Act. There is specific Board ofDirectors who are elected to look after the affairs of the society.These applicants have no any control over the society or they arenot remotely concerned with the day-to-day affairs of thesociety. There is no power vested with any of these applicants.Allegation in the FIR is only that the informant was not7 of 15 (8)907aba909.24permitted to withdraw the amount of the deposits. Three of suchfixed deposits are to mature in the year 2025. The application inrespect of those three FD was made much prior to its maturity.So far as section 3 of the MPID Act is concerned, he submits thatingredients are not at all present so far as the present applicants.Sections 406, 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC are not madeout. So far as investigation is concerned, he submits thatpractically the investigation is now over. Documents are alreadyseized. There is no allegation that the amount is eithermisappropriated by these applicants or that there wasentrustment of the amount with them. Inducement as stated inthe FIR is not against any particular persons and the allegationsare very vague. Thus, even ingredients of section 420 are notattracted. There is no allegation that any of the applicants havechanged by any of the transactions of the bank and thus there isno custodial interrogation is now required. He points outcircular dated 03-07-2017 issued by Ministry of Agriculture andFarmers Welfare. The said circular is issued looking to the factthat there are various Multi States Cooperative Societies which8 of 15 (9)907aba909.24attract the deposits of the depositors. It is made mandatory todisplay warning at entrance of the society or branches informingthe depositors that deposits made are at their own risk. Bycircular dated 25-06-2021, further it is clarified that if suchwarning is not displayed that would be taken as violation of therules. He, thus, submits that in every society there is suchwarning given and thus there is no question of any one inducingthe informant or the depositors. Showing these applicants asaccused is only an attempt to bring pressure on the society. Hesubmits that the applicants have attended the police stationwhenever called by the Investigating Officer pursuant to theinterim order passed by this court and there is no complaint inthat regard. He thus, submits that these applicants areunnecessarily implicated and prays for allowing the applicationby confirming the earlier order of interim relief.6.Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, learned advocate for theapplicant in Application No.897/2024 adopts the arguments ofMr. R. S. Deshmukh, learned senior advocate. He submits that9 of 15 (10)907aba909.24all resolutions etc. are passed by the Members of the Board ofDirectors, Chairman, Vice Chairman, CEO, Deputy CEO etc. Norole is assigned to the Local Advisors.7.Mr. Bajaj, learned advocate for the applicant inApplication No.902/2024 submits that by laws do not makeprovision for Local Advisors. His client neither attended anymeeting of the society nor played any role in such meetings. Hisname is published by the society as Local Advisor. He submitsthat there is no election or there is no even application made bythe applicant. At the most he had opened one account in thesaid society. However, thereafter there was no transaction. Hisclient has not received any notice from the society.8.Mr. Rathi, learned advocate for the applicant inapplication No. 899/2024 submits that his client is senior citizenof more than 75 years of age. He submits that this additionalfactor needs to be considered in this case.10 of 15 (11)907aba909.249.Mr. Kishor Ghute Patil learned advocate for theapplicant in Application No.900/2024 submits that the applicantin his case is retired as MSEB employee. He never had inrelation with the society. There is no specific allegations againsthis client.10.Mr. Tiwari, learned advocate for the applicant inapplication No.918/2024 submits that at the most role allegedto his client is that his property is shown on the letter head ofthe society as property of the society. His client is also apensioner and he has no role in any of the transactions.11.Opposing the applications the learned APP submittedthat the applicant in ABA No. 899/2024 happens to be a closerelative of the Chairman. Branch at Latur is established becauseof this applicant. He has made some recommendations for givingsome jobs to his close persons in the society. So as far asapplicant in application No. 918/2024 is concerned, he submitsthat one of the properties of this applicant is shown to be a11 of 15 (12)907aba909.24property of the society on its letter head. The blank cheques andsome other documents like bonds etc. were found in the office ofthe society. This applicant is also a member of Latur EducationSociety wherein the main accused i.e. Chairman of the society isalso a member. Rent of the property is paid from the account ofsociety. There is suspicion that he has purchased some propertiesin some other cities. Role of these two applicants is different andis in addition to role of other applicants. He submits thatdepositors have deposited the amount looking at theseapplicants as these applicants happen to be prestigious personsin the society. He submits that Chief Executive Officer of thebank has invited them to attend the function wherein theircontribution in the society in the progress of the society isacknowledged. He submits that in every function theseapplicants attend the functions of the society. He submits thatduring the investigation a trust deed came to be seized whereinit is seen that the applicant in ABA 918/2024 and the Chairmanof the Bank are on the Managing Body of the said trust. Hefurther submits that some loan is advanced to Kulkarni of Rs.1112 of 15 (13)907aba909.24core. So far as the applicant in application No.899/2024 isconnected with the society. Rent was paid from the accountmaintained in the society to a building for Latur EducationSociety. He submits that there are photographs showing thatthese applicants are actively involved in the functions of thesociety. There are 1011 depositors who have been cheated.Looking to the magnitude of the offence it is necessary to havecustodial interrogation of the applicants. He further submitswith the assistance of the Mr. Vrnjane that if section 3 of MPIDAct it is any other person responsible in the financialestablishment are liable for action and thus all these applicantsare added as accused in view of the section 3 of the MPID Act.The informant in this case is 85 years of age. He has depositedhis hard earned amount in the society. Role of these applicants isto attract the depositors from the Latur city. For this purpose,they are taken in the society as Local Advisors. It is modesoperendi of the society to appoint Local Advisors so as to attractthe local depositors. Certain documents are yet to be seized forthe purpose of investigation. He thus, submits that the13 of 15 (14)907aba909.24applications deserve to be rejected.12.To satisfy prima facie this court has seen allegationsunder Sections 306, 309, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPCand section 3 of the MPID Act. Looking at the FIR there isnothing to show that any property was entrusted with thepresent applicants. Section 3 of the MPID Act though states thatany of other persons including ‘Promoter, Partner, Director,Manager or any other person or employee responsible formanagement or conducting of business or affairs of suchfinancial establishment’. Though the learned APP has pressed onthe words ‘any other person’, however, it needs to be consideredthat only ‘person responsible for the management or conductingof the business or affairs of such establishment’ is material.There is no material at least, at this stage to show that theseapplicants are in any way responsible for the management orconducting of the business or affairs of the society. This courtfinds that breach of trust is made out. This court finds that nocase of only vague and omnibus allegations are made that the14 of 15 (15)907aba909.24accused persons had assured good returns to the depositors andit is because of such, he had deposited the amount. There is nospecific name of any of the applicants stated. Thus, in absence ofany specific allegations, this court finds that it would not be safeto direct the custodial interrogation of these applicants.13.Since the applicants have attended the police station,there is no any allegations that they have breached any of theconditions or they have not cooperated in the investigation, thiscourt finds that the applications need to be allowed. Thus, theapplications stands allowed by confirming the earlier orderspassed in separate applications on same conditions.14.With this, applications stand disposed off.15.It is made clear that observations made in this orderare strictly for the purpose of deciding present applications only. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]VishalK/907aba909.2415 of 15