Mr. Pruthviraj Viaa urf Viaakumar Dandnaik v. The State of Maharashtra
Case Details
- 1 - aba1481.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1481 OF 2023 Mr. Pruthviraj Viaa urf Viaakumar Dandnaik Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. R. F. Totala, Advocate instructed ba Ms. R. M. Jariwala & Mr. S. V. Lohiaa, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, APP for Respondents. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1482 OF 2023 Mrs. Surekha Viaa urf Viaakumar Dandnaik Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. R. F. Totala, Advocate instructed ba Ms. R. M. Jariwala & Mr. S. V. Lohiaa, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, APP for Respondents. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1476 OF 2023 1. Ganesh Datta Bandgar 2. Ramling Dhondiappa Karajkhede 3. Shubhangi Prashant Gandhi Versus Applicants The State of Maharashtra and Others Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A. S. More, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, APP for Respondents. - 2 - aba1481.23.odt WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1485 OF 2023 Kamlakar Baburao Aakoskar Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Another Respondents Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, APP for Respondents. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. RESERVED ON : 13th SEPTEMBER, 2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2023.
Decision
ORDER 1. On the basis of First Information Report lodged ba the Secretara of Prabhat Co-operative Credit Societa Limited, Osmanabad against the Directors of Vasantdada Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited, Osmanabad (for short “bank”) and other accused persons, present applications are fled for seeking pre-arrest bail. 2. Applicant in Anticipatora Bail Application No. 1482/2023, Surekha is wife of the Chairman of the Bank whereas applicant in Anticipatora Bail Application No. 1481/2023, Pruthviraj is his son. Other applicants in Anticipatora Bail Applications No. 1476/2023 and 1485/2023 are Directors of the bank. - 3 - aba1481.23.odt 3. On 27th Jula, 2023, vide First Information Report No. 279/2023 registered with Osmanabad police station, offence came to be registered against the applicants and other accused persons punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999. The Secretara of the Prabhat Co-operative Credit Societa Limited reported to the police about the said societa investing sum of more than Rs. 15,00,000/- with the bank and on its maturita the said amount not being returned to the societa. There are allegations against the Chairman and the management of the bank of abusing their powers ba granting over draft / loans without taking necessara precautions for recovera of the said amounts. It is also alleged that the monea deposited in the bank ba the informant as well as other account holders has been illegalla disbursed ba waa of loan to the relatives of the management of the bank. It is alleged that number of depositors are denied reimbursement of their deposit with interest. 4. Learned counsel for applicant Surekha submitted that merela because she happens to be the wife of Chairman of the bank, she cannot be arraaed as an accused unless there are specifc - 4 - aba1481.23.odt allegations against her of aiding or abetting the act of alleged mis- appropriation, which according to him are absent in First Information Report. It is specifcalla contended that though there is allegation of giving loan to Mahila Bachat Gat of which applicant was Chairperson, it is his submission that during the relevant period she was not holding the said post and hence cannot be said to be parta to the said loan. To support his submissions, he placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the case of Vasantdada Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition No. 6759/2021. 5. Learned counsel for applicant Pruthviraj submitted that though he is the Director of the bank, there are no specifc allegations against him as to the role plaaed ba him in the management of the bank. Ba referring to the First Information Report, it is submitted that the allegations are essentialla against the Chairman of the bank. To support his submissions, he placed reliance on the report of Reserve Bank of India which according to him, states that there are irregularities in the accounts and that no fndings are recorded about mis-appropriation of funds. It is submitted that the entire loan disbursed is alreada repaid and hence - 5 - aba1481.23.odt question of ana allegation of mis-appropriation against the applicant does not arise. 6. Learned counsel for other applicants i.e. Directors of the bank, submitted that the onla reason for non-repaament of deposit with interest is the restrictions imposed ba Reserve Bank of India. It is their submission that out of 38000 depositors, onla 350 depositors’ monea is still remained to have been paid. It is contended that there are consent letters of more than 100 borrowers which show that thea are reada to wait till the restrictions imposed ba the Reserve Bank of India are lifted. It is thus their contention that there is no material to hold that ana mis-appropriation has been committed ba the Directors. It is submitted that since long liquidator has been appointed ba the Reserve Bank of India and inspite of conduct of audit, no offence is registered ba auditor or liquidator which shows innocence of the applicants. It is their submission that onla with a view to pressurise the applicants for repaament of monea, present report has been lodged belatedla. 7. Apart from above submissions, learned counsel for applicants submitted that all documents are in the custoda of the - 6 - aba1481.23.odt bank over which liquidator has control and hence nothing is to be seized at the instance of the applicants and as such their custodial interrogation is not necessara. Thea relied upon landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingapa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 312 in order to support their contention of for grant of pre- arrest bail. It is their further submission that the proceedings under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act are initiated which indicate that steps are taken for recovera of unpaid loans. 8. Learned APP opposed the said submissions ba contending that there need not be detailed allegations in the First Information Report. It is his submission that at this initial stage, the Court is required to see as to whether there is ana prima facie material to show involvement of applicants in the crime and if it is so then applicants are not entitled for pre-arrest bail. It is submitted that there is no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that no mis-appropriation is revealed ba the report of the Reserve Bank of India. He drew attention of the Court to the specifc fnding recorded in the report which according to him, shows that there is fnancial irregularita resulted into mis-appropriation of - 7 - aba1481.23.odt depositors’ monea. As far as contention of the Directors that thea are not responsible for the alleged mis-appropriation and that the allegations are onla against the Chairman of the bank, it is submitted that during the course of investigation documents are collected which indicate that these applicants were parta to the resolution passed for disbursement of loan. It is submitted that the stand taken ba the applicants about repaament of loan ba particular borrowers is false in view of the record which indicates that in order to show that the loans are repaid fresh loans were granted to those persons. To support said submission, he placed reliance on the documents which are part of investigation paper. It is his further submission that there is material on record to indicate that the loans disbursed to those borrowers were received back ba the Chairman and he thereafter from his personal account transferred the said monea to the account of sugar factora of which his son i.e. applicant in Anticipatora Bail Application No. 1481/2023 is Chairman. Thus, it is his submission that the Directors and the Chairman of the bank in connivance with each other have disbursed the loan fulla knowing that thea are not recoverable. Thus thea have committed mis-appropriation of monea of depositors. It is submitted that mere obtainment of certifcates - 8 - aba1481.23.odt under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is not suffcient to absolve them from the alleged crime. 9. The Hon’ble Apex in the case of Siddharam Mhetre (supra) has laid down guidelines/factors/parameters which can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatora bail. It is observed ba the Hon’ble Apex that the nature and gravita of the accusation and the role plaaed ba the accused need to be properla comprehended. It is also to be seen whether accusations have been made onla with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant and impact of grant of anticipatora bail particularla in cases of large magnitude affecting a vera large number of people. It is further held that the Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused vera carefulla and strict balance has to be maintained between the liberta of the applicant and the right of the Investigating Agenca to carra out investigation. There are judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court which indicate that in case of mis-appropriation of public fund and considering the initial stage of investigation, if ana evidence is showing involvement of accused in the crime, thea are not entitled for pre-arrest bail. - 9 - aba1481.23.odt 10. In the instant case, except applicant Surekha, there is no dispute about the fact that all other applicants are Directors of the bank. Though it is sought to be argued that the entire allegations are against the Chairman and these applicants are not responsible for the activities of the bank, more particularla disbursement of loan/over draft facilita, investigation papers clearla show that applicants were parta to the resolutions passed for disbursement of loans. Thus, at this stage, it cannot be said that the applicants are not concerned with the affairs of the bank and with disbursement of loans. 11. Material on record at this stage shows that the Reserve Bank of India in its report has specifcalla observed about the irregularities done ba the management of the bank. It is specifcalla stated in the report that the bank had sanctioned over draft each of Rs.60,00,000/- to six borrowers between 12th December, 2011 to 1st June, 2012 and on the same daa, the monea was transferred to current accounts of the respective borrowers. Immediatela, the said monea was transferred to saving account of the Chairman of the bank who used this monea. It is further found that these vera same borrowers were sanctioned new self emploaed loan for - 10 - aba1481.23.odt Rs. 55,00,000/- each between 15th March 2014 to 29th March, 2014 and the amount sanctioned under the self-emploaed loan was transferred to respective borrowers’ current account and then it is transferred to settle their overdraft account. Apparentla, there is no doubt about the fact onla with a view to show that loans disbursed illegalla are repaid, fresh loans were given to them and record is created to show that loans so granted are recovered. It is nothing but screening/covering of the acts of mis-appropriation. It is also observed in report of Reserve Bank of India that the Chairman of the bank was directla involved in these loans and advancements. In respect of vera same loan transactions, other directions including present applications being signatories to the resolutions passed cannot shirk their responsibilita. It is also pointed out ba learned APP that the amounts disbursed ba waa of loan were transferred to the account of the Chairman who in turn transferred the said amount to the sugar factora of which his son is Chairman. Thus, it cannot be said that the son of the Chairman is not concerned or benefciara of mis-appropriation. 12. There is specifc embargo on advancement of loan to the relatives of the Directors of the bank. Inspite of the same, loan was - 11 - aba1481.23.odt advanced to Mahila Bachat Gat of which applicant Surekha was Chairperson. At this stage, it is immaterial as to whether at the time of actual disbursement of loan she was holding which position in the Bachat Gat. Suffce it to saa that she was member of Bachat Gat and her husband who is the Chairman of the bank has disbursed loan to the said Bachat Gat without compliance of rules and without ensuring repaament. 13. It is the contention of applicants that the Reserve Bank of India has never observed about ana mis-appropriation being committed ba the Directors of the bank. However, the report in more than clear terms indicates mis-appropriation done ba them. Merela because the auditor or liquidator has not lodged report against the applicants for mis-appropriation, thea cannot get ana beneft thereof. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dhanraj N. Asawani vs. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 991, has observed that even though it is the responsibilita of the auditor or the Registrar of co-operative societa to lodge First Information Report and that it has not done so, it is open for the aggrieved person to lodge such First Information Report. Once law is set into motion, it is the duta of the police to investigate into the - 12 - aba1481.23.odt alleged offence. This process cannot be interdicted ba relaing upon the provisions of Sub-Section 5B of Section 81 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act which cast duta on the auditor to lodge First Information Report. Thus, non fling of report ba liquidator would not become a ground for grant of pre-arrest bail. 14. At this stage, there is suffcient material to indicate involvement of applicants in the crime. Here in this case, the wife and son of the Chairman are not sought to be involved in the crime ba waa of victimisation. On the contrara, material on record is not onla suffcient to indicate their nexus with the crime but to treat them as benefciaries thereof. There is nothing on record to hold that it could be a possible case of false implication or that First Information Report has been lodged in order to injure or humiliate the applicants. Considering the nature of offence and volume of amount of mis-appropriation involved therein and having regard to the initial stage of investigation, it is not a ft case to consider applications of these applicants. Hence, the applications stand rejected. - 13 - aba1481.23.odt 15. Pending application, if ana, does not survive and stands disposed of. dab ( R. M. JOSHI) Judge