Facts & background in brief:

The First Information Report No. 30/08 of Achalpur Police Station is lodged by the Administrator of Achalpur Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Achalpur, who is also Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Achalpur, on 17th March, 2008. This FIR is lodged on the basis of the letters dated 14th and 22nd January, 2008, received from the Reserve Bank of India and the Report of Inspection/Enquiry conducted under Section 89-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act by the Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Achalpur.

2. Few amongst persons, who have been named as accused in Crime No.30/08, have filed these applications for anticipatory bail, after rejection of same prayer by Sessions Court.

3. The accused are broadly classified as follows :[a] Directors of Achalpur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, [b] Borrowers who are related to the officers of the Bank.

[c] Borrowers, who are Family Members or relatives of the Directors or Employees of the Bank, [d] Borrowers, who are not in categories [a] and [c] above.

4. Loans leading to filing of FIR are broadly classified as follows :[a] Loans granted in the names of Directors and employees of the Bank and/or their family members. Though these loans appear to be secured by mortgage, those are in default, and have turned either doubtful or bad debts.

[b] Borrowers different from those described in [a] above who claim that entire amount of loan was paid to the Chairman of the Bank.

[c] Loans where there may be irregularity from the point of view of lending, or non-observance of provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

Prima facie, these loans are secured by mortgage or other security, however, loss to the Bank is ensuing, as the debt is turning either doubtful or. bad, and according to FIR, however, these are cases of misappropriation by the concerned borrowers.

5. In relation to certain loans by the 2 Directors/employees, it is seen that the accused have been named to be responsible for pilferage or destruction of documents.

6. Based on the documents leading to First Information Report, it is alleged that various borrowers named therein who are 36 in number and who are given loans, have misappropriated money belonging to the Bank in the guise of borrowing.

7. It is further alleged that the persons named at the end of text of the First Information Report, who are the Directors of the Bank and employees etc., have, in collusion with each other, cheated the Bank by sanctioning bogus loan proposals and thereby misappropriated the amount of the Bank.

Contentions in support of applications for anticipatory bail.

8. According to applicants:[a] These are routine loan transactions which are duly recorded.

[b] These are secured loans, and most borrowers are willing to repay, and, therefore, no offence is committed.

[c] That even if there are some irregularities in process of sanction and disbursement of the loans, those would not transform the transactions of loan into misappropriation by conspiracy and abetement thereof and of forgery and fabrication of documents for this purpose.

[d] Three accused, who were borrowers and other accused, who are Chairman, Directors, and Employees named in Crime No.3/08, are again arrayed as accused in present Crime, i.e. 30/08, which is not permissible.

[e] In Crime No.3/08, that all other accused, except Chairman - Mr. Gotmare, are released on bail. Present FIR is based on same footing and applicants are entitled to the same treatment.

9. For the relief sought, applicants are relying on various cases, namely :[1] Ashok Dhingra Vs. N.C.T., of Delhi [(2000)9 SCC 533 : (2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1882 (S.C.))], [2] Criminal Application No.2308/2002 decided on 7-10-02 [Coram: J. A. Patil, J.], [3] Babanrao Tukaram Ranjane V s. State of Mah. [(2006)9 SCC 422 : (2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2655 (S.C.))],' [4] State of Maharashtra Vs. Ketan Parek & etc. [2008(2) AIR Born R 150], [5] Bhagirathsinh Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat [(1984