High Court
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:14559 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1027 OF 2024 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1028 OF 2024HARISHCHANDRA PANDHARINATH SHELKEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAMr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkha, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. K. M. Salve & Ms. Tejashri Nalawade i/b Mr. D. R. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for the respondent/StateCORAM:R. M. JOSHI, J.DATED:18th JULY, 2024PER COURT :-1.Suo moto this motion is moved for speaking to the minutesof order dated 18/07/2024. Inadvertently in title clause Anticipatory BailApplication No. 1028 of 2024 remained to be mentioned.2.This being inadvertent error, the necessary corrections bemade accordingly and corrected copy be uploaded. (R. M. JOSHI, J.)sspaba1027&28-24 (copy).odt1 of 7 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // (This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes order dated 18/07/2024)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1027 OF 2024WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1028 OF 2024HARISHCHANDRA PANDHARINATH SHELKEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAMr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkha, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. K. M. Salve & Ms. Tejashri Nalawade i/b Mr. D. R. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for the respondent/StateCORAM:R. M. JOSHI, J.RESERVED ON:15th JULY, 2024PRONOUNCED ON :18th JULY, 2024PER COURT :-1.These are second Anticipatory Bail Applications of applicantsseeking pre-arrest bail in connection Crime No. 279/2023 registered withOsmanabad City Police Station, District Osmanabad for the offencespunishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w 345 of the Indian PenalCode (for short ‘IPC’) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the MaharashtraProtection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act,1999 (for short ‘M.P.I.D’ Act).2.First informant is the Manager of Prabhat Co-operative CreditSociety Limited and it is his contention that it is a Co-operative CreditSociety and the amounts collected from its members are deposited withaba1027&28-24 (copy).odt2 of 7 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // Vasantdada Nagari Sahakari Bank Marya., Osmanabad. It is claimed thatsuch transaction is in place since year 2004. It is claimed that till13/11/2017 on current account of society there is a sum ofRs.50,68,472/- similarly from time to time investment is done by thesociety in the fixed deposits with the bank. It is alleged therein that onaccount of misappropriations and irregularities in the affairs of the bank,restrictions were imposed by R.B.I. for withdrawal of the amount. It isalleged that the bank had issued overdraft loan to 11 individuals forRs.60 lakhs each and the said amount was transferred on the same dayin the account of Chairman of the bank. It is also claimed thatsubsequently further amount of loan was issued to them in order tosquare off previous loan. It is alleged that overdraft facility was allowedto Jaylaxmi Sugar Factory which belongs to the Chairman of the bank.Thus, it is a case of the informant that total sum of Rs.2,31,68,472/- isduped by the Managing Directors of the bank. Applicants had filedapplications bearing No. 1538/2023 and 1573/2023 which applicationswere allowed to be withdrawn after disinclination was shown by thisCourt to grant relief on 07/11/2023 and 04/12/2023 respectively.3.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that now there ischange in circumstances in order to entertain second bail application. Itis his submission that practically investigation of the crime is completeaba1027&28-24 (copy).odt3 of 7 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // and charge-sheet is about to be filed against the accused person. It isfurther argued that the Chairman of the Bank was arrested and is nowenlarged on regular bail by this Court by order dated 29/02/2024 passedin Bail Application No. 271/2024 wherein condition was imposed on himto deposit a sum of Rs.1,31,68,472/- and also to provide securitytowards the remaining amount involved in this crime. It is submitted thatthe amount is deposited so also the security has been given to thesatisfaction of the Court. It is also argued that liberty of the co-accusedhas been protected by Hon’ble Supreme Court by interim protection andfinal order in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 15573/2023,16118/2024 and 15735/2023. It is thus submitted that in view of theorders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court so also considering the factthat the entire amount involved in the alleged crime is secured, nocustodial interrogation of the applicants would be necessary.4.Learned APP opposed the applications by contending that thevolume of the crime is required to be considered while entertainingpresent applications. It is his submission that though co-accused hasdeposited some amount and has also provided security, the custodialinterrogation of the applicants is necessary in order to ascertain as tohow the yields of the crime are utilized by them. Thus, according to himsame cannot be found out unless their custody is obtained. As far as theaba1027&28-24 (copy).odt4 of 7 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned, it is sought tobe argued that two accused in the discretion granted interim protectionand in order passed in favour of accused Surekha Vijay Dandnaik it isrecorded that the learned counsel appearing for the State informed theHon’ble Surpeme Court that the said accused has cooperated in theinvestigation and the investigation is over and charge-sheet is alsorevealed. It is submitted that in that case there was interim protectiongranted to the said accused and pursuant thereto she had cooperatedand participated in the investigation. According to him, the applicants areyet to be interrogated and as such this is not a case for grant ofanticipatory bail on parity. 5.Perusal of the papers of investigation disclosed that thepresent applicants are directors of the bank since year 2016 to 2021continuously, unlike co-accused Surekha who was director till 2016 only.There is further material on record to indicate that they had activelyparticipated in the transactions in question and that their signatures arealso appearing on the minutes of meeting wherein the suspicious loantransactions were approved. The alleged offence covers more than Rs.10crores and several investors are victims of this crime. The question arisesbefore this Court is as to whether the deposit of amount and furnishingof security by co-accused towards the amount recoverable in this crimeaba1027&28-24 (copy).odt5 of 7 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // would become a ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the presentapplicants. The purpose of the investigation is not only to secure themoney misappropriated but it is also necessary that there is effectiveinvestigation carried out in order to ascertain as to how the crime iscommitted and the benefits of the crime are utilized. Here in this caseco-accused in his individual capacity has given security towards theamount involved in the crime, but misappropriated amount has not beenrecovered yet. Further still it is to be investigated as to the benefitsderived by the applicants from criime. On the face of it there is materialevidence to show that they are directors of the bank for substantial timeand that they have actively participated in the affairs of the bankincluding the resolution passed for disbursing suspicious loan to 11persons to the extent of Rs.60 lakhs each. Having regard to these fact, itcannot be said that prima facie involvement of the applicants is notfound in the crime. This Court also finds substance in the contention ofthe learned APP that in order to ascertain the utilization of the moneyearned from the crime by the present applicants so also to find out themanner in which the crime is committed, their custodial interrogation isessential.6.As far as the interim reliefs granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtis concerned, perusal of the order shows that in discretion of the Hon’bleaba1027&28-24 (copy).odt6 of 7 This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // Supreme Court such relief was granted to two co-accused. In so far asco-accused Surekha Vijay Dandnaik is concerned, statement was madeon behalf of the learned counsel for the State that she has cooperated inthe investigation and this appears to have become a ground forprotecting her from arrest. Herein this case, applicants have successfullyavoided their arrest for a long period and that there occurred no occasionfor them to participate in investigation. Merely because they were able toavoid the arrest for substantial time, it cannot become a ground forgranting anticipatory bail. 7.Having regard to the afore stated facts, no case is made outfor grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, applications stand rejected.(R. M. JOSHI, J.)sspaba1027&28-24 (copy).odt7 of 7