1. Rule, returnable forthwith.

This application is filed for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.216/2008 registered at Chalisgaon Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. on 19th October, 2008.

2. Apprehending arrest, the present applicant filed application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Jalgaon being Criminal Bail Application No.1103 of 2008 which came to be rejected on 26.11.2008. Hence, this application.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the contents in the complaint and submitted that the only allegation against applicant is that he has borrowed huge amount of loan for partnership firm. The present applicant was partner of the firm only from 31.3.2004 till 1.4.2004 and he resigned from the partnership firm on 1.4.2004. Therefore, hardly he was there as a partner. He further invited my attention to the contents of the F.I.R. at page 17 of the compilation and submitted that the only allegation against the applicant is that the applicant has misappropriated the amount by putting the Bank in economical loss by entering into criminal conspiracy with the another partner of the firm. According to the learned Counsel, he was partner of the said firm from 31.3.2004 to 1.4.2004 only. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible for any repayment of the loan by the concerned firm. Therefore, he submitted that the present applicant should be released on anticipatory bail. He invited my attention to para 2 of the interim order dated 11th December, 2008 passed by this Court and submitted that in the interim order this Court has observed that it appears that he has not participated in the business of partnership on regular basis.

4. The learned A.P.P. assisted by the learned counsel for the Society / Bank submitted that the offence in question is very serious. Arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. The applicant accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. Loan is granted to the applicant and other various borrowers in utter disregard to the rules and regulations of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Bombay Regulation Act, 1949 and various circulars issued by the R.B.I. due to which now the Bank is put into liquidation. By way of illegal activities of the Directors, Borrowers, there is huge misappropriation, siphoning of money of the Bank and therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of bail.

5. It is further submitted by the learned A.P.P. that for the following reasons, bail should not be granted to the present applicant:

.(a) A dishonest financial transactions have taken place. Undoubtedly, there is sufficient material to indicate that financial irregularities and dishonest and fraudulent loan transactions have taken place in the affairs of the said Bank, for which the board of directors and present borrower, who were in

.collusion with them are responsible. Requisite security was not obtained, without mortgage, without valuation report, title report, without verifying the stock, license of the shop, annual report of the shop, under the garb of loan amount was advanced to person residing outside the jurisdiction of the Bank. However, forged and fabricated record was created, the exposure limit was four lacs however, loan was sanctioned above four lacs. Fraudulently the fix deposit receipts were not pledged, loan was sanctioned to a person whose capacity, ability to repay the amount was not considered. The applicant hatched the conspiracy with board of directors and manager hence, deliberately and knowingly with malafide intention to defraud the bank they had not taken any action. The police custody is required for custodial interrogation which. There is volu