High Court · 2024
Facts
(1) ba-1676-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO.1676 OF 2024Sunil S/o Ambadas Mankape PatilAge: 51 Years, Occ: Business & Agri,R/o: Plot No.31, Shivjyoti Colony,N-6, Cidco, Ch. Sambhajinagar,Tq; and Dist: Chh. Sambhajinagar..ApplicantVersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through Police Inspector CIDCO Police Station, Chh. Sambhajinagar, Tq. & Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar..Respondents …Mr. S. S. Tope, Advocate for the Applicant.Mrs. Komal Kandharkar, Special PP for Respondent-State. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 03rd DECEMBER 2024.ORDER:-1.The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with CrimeNo.454/2023 registered with CIDCO Police Station, Dist.Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409,420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 217 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code,Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act and Sections 21 and 23 of theBanning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019.2.The investigation was set in motion on the basis of complaintgiven by Dhananjay Hiralal Chavan, Special Auditor, Class-IIalleging that in pursuance of the order of District DeputyRegistrar, Aurangabad he conducted test Audit of Adarsh NagariPat Sanstha Maryadit for the period from 2016 to 2019. He noticedserious irregularities/illegalities in disbursement of 23 loan casesand consequential misappropriation of Rs.91,97,44,064/-. It is (2) ba-1676-2024.odtfurther alleged that money deposited by common investors hasbeen siphoned on the basis of incomplete loan applicationsunsupported by requisite security and verification of repaymentcapacity of borrowers. The Directors of Bank, borrowers,employees of Credit Society in collusion with each other madewrongful gain and caused wrongful loss to the depositors of theCredit Society.3.Mr. Tope, learned Advocate appearing for the applicantsubmits that applicant was not named as accused in the FIR. He isneither Director nor employee of Adarsh Nagari Sahakari Co-operative Credit Society. He would further submit that accusedno.1 is responsible for conduct of business of Adarsh NagariSahakari Co-operative Credit Society. However, since applicant isson of accused no.1, he has been falsely implicated in aforesaidcrime. Mr. Tope would further submit that applicant has beenarrested in pursuance of crime on 15.08.2023. He was remanded topolice custody till 22.08.2023, since then, he has been remanded toMagisterial Custody. The investigation in the matter is completed.The supplementary charge-sheet is also filed. The applicant hasalready suffered incarceration for more than 15 months. The pre-trial detention of applicant need not be continued any more. Thetrial is likely to take much time.4.Per contra, Mrs. Kandharkar, learned Special PP stronglyopposes prayers for grant of bail to the applicant. She wouldsubmit that role of applicant has been surfaced during the course ofinvestigation. She would further submit that audit report filed byMr. T. H. Chavan for the period from 2016 to 2019 showsdisbursement of loans without security, in connivance withborrowers. The applicant played vital role in getting disbursementof such loans either acting as guarantor or facilitator by
Legal Reasoning
(3) ba-1676-2024.odtwithdrawing amount sanctioned towards loans through accountsmaintained with sister concerns. His active participation indubious transactions cannot be ignored. She submits that in caseapplicant is released on bail, possibility, he being influencingprocess for recovery of amount under MPID Act cannot be ruledout.5.Having considered submissions advanced, it can be gatheredthat applicant is not Director or employee of the Adarsh NagariSahakari Co-operative Credit Society in respect of whose fraud isalleged in the FIR. It can also be gathered that applicant is notnamed in the FIR. However, his name has been included asaccused in the charge-sheet. The material on record indicates thatapplicant is son of main accused Ambadas Mankape. Prima facie,there is material to show that dubious loan transactions have beenmade by Directors of the Adarsh Nagari Sahakari Co-operativeCredit Society in connivance with the employees and members ofMankape family, who were occupying various positions in sisterinstitutions under the control of Mankape family. The applicantwas Manager on one of such institution i.e. Adarsh Mahila NagariCo-operative Credit Bank Limited. The loans are disbursed tovarious persons and sister concerns without taking care of requisitesecurity or ensuring repayment of loans. The amount disbursedtowards various loans are routed through various institutions ofthe Mankape family and direct and indirect benefits are taken bythe accused persons. The applicant appears to be guarantor tosome of the loans, which are found to be dubious. The hugeamount of such loans is outstanding and there is no security forrecovery of such loans.6.Although, prima facie, there is material depictinginvolvement of applicant in commission of offence in connivance (4) ba-1676-2024.odtwith his family members and there are documents indicating hebeing beneficiary of such transactions, question that requiresconsideration at this stage is as to whether further detention of theapplicant is necessary or he deserves to be enlarged on bail.7.Admittedly, applicant has been arrested on 15.08.2023.Since then, he was remanded to Magisterial Custody till22.08.2023. On completion of investigation, supplementary charge-sheet is filed. The learned Special PP submitted during the courseof argument that forensic audit has been directed in the aforesaidcrime. The report of such audit is yet to be received. On specificquery by this Court she is not in a position to assure this Courtthat forensic audit report would be received within short durationor near future so that matter would be ready for framing of charge.It can be evinced from the aforesaid factors that trial in this casewould not begin in near future.8.The questions as to whether applicant is personallyresponsible for misappropriation and whether charges leveledagainst him can be established on the basis of material in charge-sheet are questions to be deliberated during the course of trial. Theinterest of prosecution can be protected by imposing certainconditions for release of applicant on bail. However, there is noreason to permit further detention of the applicant in the facts andcircumstances of the case. In this background, reference to theobservations of the Supreme Court in case of Sangram SadashivSuryavanshi Vs. State of Maharashtra (Crl. A. No.4758/2024)can be given wherein Supreme Court reiterated that bail is ruleand shall not be refused routinely. Further, reference toobservations of the Supreme Court in case of Javed Gulam NabiShaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (Criminal (5) ba-1676-2024.odtAppeal No.2787/2024) dated 03.07.2024 would be necessary,which states as under:“19.If the State or any prosecuting agency including thecourt concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect thefundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial asenshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the Stateor any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea forbail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of thecrime.”9.Applying aforesaid principles of law, in the fact of thepresent case, further detention of the applicant need not bepermitted. Hence, case is made out for grant of bail subject tocertain conditions. Hence, the following order:ORDER(i)Bail Application is allowed.(ii)The applicant, Sunil Ambadas Mankape Patil be released onbail in Crime No.454/2023 registered with CIDCO Police Station,Dist. Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406,409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 217 r/w 34 of the Indian PenalCode, Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act and Sections 21 and 23of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 onfurnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) onfollowing condition:a.The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecutionevidence in any manner or pressurize witnesses.b.The applicant shall attend each and every effective dateof hearing before Sessions Court in Special Case No.386/2023. (6) ba-1676-2024.odtc.The applicant shall not leave State of Maharashtrawithout prior intimation and submission of itinerary with theSessions Court.(iii)Application is disposed of. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/December-2024