Archana Suresh Kute v. The State of Maharashtra and another
Legal Reasoning
Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2042 OF 2024.Archana Suresh Kute,Age: 40 Years, Occupation: Business,R/o.: Tirumala Residency, Sy. No. 51 & 52,Mauje Bhairwadi, Taluka & District: Beed..ApplicantVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Inspector,Paithan Police Station, Paithan,Taluka: Paithan, District: ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar2.The Superintendent of Police,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Rural),Taluka & District: ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar ..Respondents...Advocates for Applicant : Mr. Vishal Kale, Mr. Prashant Shinde & Mr. S. V. SuryawanshiAPP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya...WITH…CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4770 OF 2024 IN ABA/2042/2024RAVI RAJKUMAR ROHRA AND OTHERSVERSUSARCHANA SURESH KUTE AND ANOTHER…Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Jarare Prasad DevidasAPP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. K. LakhotiyaPage 1 of 18
Legal Reasoning
Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mr. S. V. Suryawanshi…WITH…CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4771 OF 2024 IN ABA/2042/2024MUKESH SHRICHAND PANJWANIVERSUSARCHANA SURESH KUTE AND ANOTHER…Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Jarare Prasad DevidasAPP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. K. LakhotiyaAdvocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mr. S. V. Suryawanshi…WITH…CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4777 OF 2024 IN ABA/2042/2024RAHANE URMILA SHOK AND OTHERSVERSUSARCHANA SURESH KUTE AND OTHERS…Advocate for Applicant : Ms. P. S. Talekar i/b. Talekar AndAssociatesAPP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. K. LakhotiyaAdvocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mr. S. V. Suryawanshi…WITH…CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4802 OF 2024 IN ABA/2042/2024SHYAM RAMPRASAD LOHIYAVERSUSARCHANA SURESH KUTE AND ANOTHERPage 2 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024…Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sachin Kunte h/f. Mr. AvinashAnandrao AuteAPP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. K. LakhotiyaAdvocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mr. S. V. Suryawanshi…WITH…CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4899 OF 2024 IN ABA/2042/2024RADHA W/O RAMESHWAR IMADEVERSUSARCHANA W/O SURESH KUTE AND ANOTHER…Advocate for Applicant : Ms. Jagtap Rutuja MachindraAPP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. K. LakhotiyaAdvocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mr. S. V. Suryawanshi...CORAM:ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE:03.03.2025ORDER:1.Heard learned counsel for the applicantsMr. Vishal Kale, Mr. Prashant Shinde & Mr. Surendra V.Suryawanshi, Mr. Jarare Prasad Devidas, Ms. P. S. Talekari/b. Talekar And Associates, Mr. Sachin Kunte h/f.Mr. Avinash Anandrao Aute, Mr. Jagtap Rutuja Machindraand Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, learned APP for the respondent-State in respective applications. Page 3 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.20242.The applications for assist to learned publicprosecutor were already allowed vide order dated09.01.2025 and seems to be inadvertently listed today.Hence, Remove from board.3.The applicant is apprehending arrest inconnection with Crime No.0230/2024, dated 09.06.2024,registered at Paithan Police Station, District Aurangabad(Rural), for the offences punishable under Sections 420,409, 467, 120-B r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 &under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection ofInterest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act,1999 & under Sections 21 and 22 of the Banning ofUnregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.The FIR / crime relates to large scale fraud by thehusband of the applicant and the applicant and otheraccused, wherein lakhs of depositors of the DyanradhaMultistate Co-Operative Credit Society Limited has lost theirmoney.Page 4 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024SUBMISSIONSON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:4.The learned counsel for the applicant submitsthat the above offences are being investigated by theEconomic Offences Wing (EOW) Sambhajinagar Rural. Thatpresent investigation agency have investigated more than 10FIRs and the main accused namely Suresh Kute has beenarrested and he is now in custody of EnforcementDirectorate, Mumbai. That said Investigation Agency hasinvestigated these FIRs and also have filed Charge- sheet infew of the offences.5.The learned counsel for the applicant submitsthat the present Applicant is dragged in the present FIR justbecause her husband was the Director of the DyanradhaMultistate Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Beed BranchPaithan. That present Applicant is Director in Kute Groupand nowhere concerned with affairs of the DyanradhaMultistate Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Beed BranchPaithan. The learned counsel submits that, the bothPage 5 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024Dyanradha Multistate Co-Operative Credit Society Limited,Beed Branch Paithan and Kute Group are totally differentlegal entity established under the different provision of lawsbut the Respondent has wrongly implicated the presentApplicant in the said FIR just because she being "Wife" of themain Accused Suresh Kute.6.The learned counsel for the applicant submitsthat the Applicant is undergoing the treatment of brainstroke and intracranial injury and cerebral venous sinusthrombosis which can be proved by the Medical Reportswhich are produced on record. That the Applicant is onlylady in the house who has to take care of her old age motherwho is of 90 years old and also having minor child and thereis no one to take care of them.7.The learned counsel for the applicant submitsthat only role in said FIR is attributed to her is that she isalleged to be a business promoter in the above said CreditSociety. That considering the allegations in FIR as it is, thereis not a single document to prove or state that presentPage 6 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024Applicant was a business promoter of the above said creditsociety and, therefore, no prima facie case is made outagainst the present Applicant.8.The learned counsel for the applicant submitsthat the prosecution as part of their investigation has causedaudit trail into affairs of the above said society by one CAfirm namely Prasad Kulkarni and company. The list ofpromoters and Directors of the said Society on investigationby prosecution is identified and confirmed by auditor.Applicant is neither promoter nor Director in the affairs ofthe society since 2010; its inception. This fact is alsoconfirmed by the prosecution while they have attached therecord of society they found the list of directors in record.She was not a Director or Chairman or held any official postin the said society and, therefore, the Applicant deservespre-arrest bail as no prima facie role and case is made outagainst the present Applicant and considering this factualand legal aspect, the conclusion be drawn as under:-Page 7 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024(A) Applicant is not a Director of the said societyand not a promoter in society as alleged and,therefore, being borrower of the said society, itcomes under the purview of the pure civildispute.(B) That even if the present Applicant and mainAccused Suresh Kute are Husband and Wife andcomes under the "Fiduciary Relationship" doesnot establish the criminal liability and, therefore,without any concrete evidence and documents,this applicant deserve pre-arrest bail in thepresent FIR.(C) She is not entrusted with the property orthere is no misappropriation of property hence409 is not applicable to her.(D) She has not accepted any deposit or part ofabove said society so, prima facie, MPID section 3and 4 is not applicable.(E) There is no intention to cheat which can beascertained from the remand application ofEnforcement Directorate.9.The learned counsel for the applicant relies uponthe following Judgments / Orders:* PASSED BY THE HON’BLE APEX COURT:-(A) State of Gujarat Vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal,(1968) 2 SCR 408Page 8 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024(B) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others Vs.State of Bihar and another, (2000) 4 SCR 168(C) Krishna Govind Patil Vs. State ofMaharashtra, (1964) 1 SCR 678(D) Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40&* PASSED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT:-(E) Vaijinath Anna Dake Vs. The State ofMaharashtra in Bail Application No.1586 of2024, dated 18.10.2024, Bombay High Court,Aurangabad Bench.ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:10.The learned APP submits that after theregistration of the FIR, investigation is going on and duringthe investigation it transpired that, the present applicantwho is the wife of Mr. Suresh Dnyanoba Kute who isChairman and founder of Dnyanradha MultistateCooperative Society, Beed and all over Maharashtra over 2lakh depositors / investors have been cheated.11.The learned APP further submits that during theinvestigation it is come on record that, the present applicantArchna Kute is one of the Director of Dnyanradha MultistatePage 9 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024Cooperative Credit Society Beed. The amounts wastransferred to main branch at Beed from the variousdeposits and accounts from the Paithan Branch.12.The learned APP further submits that duringinvestigation, it has also come on record through variousstatements and investigation papers collected from variousoffences registered with different police stations, thatthough the FIR is registered at Paithan Police Station is intune of Rs. 3,26,93,313/- but the amount is going to beincreased till filing of charge sheet because after getting theknowledge and after registration of FIR, various personincluding depositors those who have deposited the moneywith the bank are coming forward to give their statements.13.The learned APP further submits that duringinvestigation it is transpired that, present applicant alongwith her husband namely Suresh Kute who is Chairman andfounder of the Society are having 12 companies registered intheir name in which either they were Chairman or Directorof those companies. These 12 companies in fraudulentPage 10 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024manner have obtained the loan from Dnyanradha MultistateCooperative Society Bank by putting the influence beingChairman and Director of the said Cooperative Society. Theamount of loan outstanding against the husband and wife(applicant) in various companies is in tune of Rs. 3600crores approximately and most importantly the amount tobe paid by the Dnyanradha Multistate Cooperative Societiesto the depositors all over Maharashtra is to the tune of Rs.3000 crores approximately. It seems that, the husband andwife duped the bank by misappropriation of the amount ofBank and it was shown as outstanding loan amount to thetune of Rs. 3600 crores which is due as on today to the bank.14.The learned APP further submits that duringinvestigation, it is revealed that, one company namely DNRIndia Auto Care Pvt. Ltd is owned by present applicant andher husband who is chairman and founder of the society. Ason today Rs. 910 Crores is outstanding against this company.During the investigation it is found that from this DNR AutoCar Pvt. Ltd Company account crores of rupees have beenPage 11 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024transferred to the private and saving accounts maintainedby the Society those are in the name of Driver of theapplicant and other close relatives. From those accountscrores of rupees have been withdrawn in cash therefore, allthese FIR required to be investigated.15.The learned APP further submits that the fraudin this crime has to be investigated thoroughly and as ontoday there are more than 45 FIR's have been registered allover the Maharashtra about the Dnyanradha MultistateCooperative Society in which husband of the applicant isprime accused and applicant is one of the Director of mainbranch at Beed and, as such, the custodial interrogation ofthe applicant is required for further investigation to find outwhere the money has gone and where it was invested by theapplicant.16.The learned APP further submits that since thedate of FIR the present applicant is absconding; she is alsoaccused in all the FIRs all over Maharashtra registeredagainst the said Credit Society and in all the offence she isPage 12 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024till today absconding and for through investigation hercustodial interrogation is very much necessary.17.The learned APP further submits that as on todaycharge sheet is not yet filed and investigation is still inprogress, as such, at this stage, Anticipatory BailApplication of applicant cannot be entertained as it willhamper the investigation.CONSIDERATION18.On consideration of rival submissions, it is to benoted that the Chairman and Directors of the bank(including the applicant) misused their positions in collusionwith directors of Kute Groups to extend huge loans to theirown companies (Kute Groups) viz. DNR India Autotech Pvt.Ltd., Tirumala Edible Oil Refinery India Pvt. Ltd., SankalpGinning Industries LLP, Shri Tirumala Pressing Factory LLP,Shri Tirumala Cotton Cake Trading LLP, TirumalaGroundnuts Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Tirumalla IndiaStorehouse Pvt. Ltd., Kute Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd., DNYRemedies India Pvt. Ltd., DNY Supply Chain Solutions Pvt.Page 13 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024Ltd., Tirumalla Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Tirumalla EdibleOil and Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Bael Leaf Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.Without appropriate security in form of mortgagingproperties. These loans were to the tune of Rs.3500 crores(approximately).19.The Kute Group has been closed down by theChairman and other Directors of Kute Group bymisappropriating crores of rupees of the DyanradhaMultistate Co-Operative Credit Society Limited. That, lakhsof depositors all over the Maharashtra State have lost theirmoney.LAW ON THE SUBJECT20.The law on grant of anticipatory bail / regular bailin economic offences is discussed in the below mentionedJudgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court.21.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TarunKumar Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement,Page 14 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024AIR 2024 SC (Criminal) 217, at para 22, has observed asunder:“22.Lastly, it may be noted that as held incatena of decisions, the economic offencesconstitute a class apart and need to be visitedwith a different approach in the matter of bail.The economic offences having deep-rootedconspiracies and involving huge loss of publicfunds need to be viewed seriously and consideredas grave offences affecting the economy of thecountry as a whole and thereby posing seriousthreat to the financial health of the country.Undoubtedly, economic offences have seriousrepercussions on the development of the countryas a whole. To cite a few judgments in this regardare Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation (2013) 7 SCC 439, Nimmagadda Prasadv. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 466,Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement(2015) 16 SCC 1, State of Bihar and Another v. AmitKumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751. Thiscourt taking a serious note with regard to theeconomic offences had observed as back as in1987 in case of State of Gujarat v. MohanlalJitamalji Porwal and another as under:“5….The entire community is aggrieved ifthe economic offenders who ruin theeconomy of the State are not brought tobooks. A murder may be committed in theheat of moment upon passions beingaroused. An economic offence is committedwith cool calculation and deliberate designwith an eye on personal profit regardless ofthe consequence to the community. Adisregard for the interest of the communitycan be manifested only at the cost offorfeiting the trust and faith of thePage 15 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024community in the system to administerjustice in an even-handed manner withoutfear of criticism from the quarters whichview white collar crimes with a permissiveeye unmindful of the damage done to theNational Economy and Nation Interest...”23.With the advancement of technology andArtificial Intelligence,the economic offences likemoney laundering have become a real threat tothe functioning of the financial system of thecountry and have become a great challenge forthe investigation ageneses to detect andcomprehend the intricate nature of transactions,as also the role of the persons involved therein.Lot of minute exercise is expected to beundertaken by the Investigating Agency to seethat no innocent person is wrongly booked andthat no culprit escapes from the clutches of thelaw.22.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC4198, at para 81, has observed as under:“81.Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage ofinvestigation may frustrate the investigatingagency in interrogating the accused and incollecting the useful information and also thematerials which might have been concealed.Success in such interrogation would elude if theaccused knows that he is protected by the orderof the court. Grant of anticipatory bail,particularly in economic offences would definitelyhamper the effective investigation….”Page 16 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.202423.The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case ofHriday Nand Singh Vs. State of U. P. and another, dated18.03.2024, Criminal Miscellaneous Bail ApplicationNo.50076 of 2019, Neutral Citation No.- 2024:AHC:47784, atpara 13 has observed as under:“13.In Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2018)13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that thesatisfaction of the court for granting protectionunder Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from theone under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while consideringregular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and anotherVs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC181, the Supreme Court has opined that the reliefof anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguardingindividual rights. While it serves as a crucial toolto prevent the misuse of the power of arrest andprotects innocent individuals from harassment, italso presents challenges in maintaining a delicatebalance between individual rights and theinterests of justice. The tight rope we must walklies in striking a balance between safeguardingindividual rights and protecting public interest.”CONCLUSION24.Applying the law as laid down by the Hon’bleApex Court in the above noted cases for economic offencesfor grant of bail to the facts of the present case, this courtcannot grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Prima facie,Page 17 of 18 Archana Suresh Kute Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ABA2042.2024large number of depositors have lost their money on accountof fraud played by the applicant and other accused. Theapplicant and her husband using their position in theDyanradha Multistate Co-Operative Credit Society Limitedhas obtained huge loans from the bnak without security andhas defrauded the bank and it’s investors / depositors. Themagnitude of fraud is exceptionally large and the amountsembezzled has to be recovered. Entire modus operandi of thefraud has to be uncovered and evidence has to be gathered tosubstantiate the claim of the prosecution. Economic offencesare layered and thorough investigation becomes necessary.Thus, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.ORDER25.The Anticipatory Bail Application standsdismissed. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]marathePage 18 of 18