Point of Law: Criminal Law – Grant of Bail - Account auditor – Misappropriation of funds – Applicant old age and suffers from diminished vision and other ailments prevalent in senior citizens.

JUDGMENT :

Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

(2) The applicant has approached this Court seeking bail in connection with First Information Report No.0551 dated 28/12/2020, registered at Police Station, Hudkeshwar, filed against him and co-accused persons under Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).

(3) The applicant is behind bars from 28th December, 2020. The applicant had approached this Court earlier by filing a bail application, but the same was withdrawn in the light of filing of charge-sheet with liberty to approach the Special Court. Pursuant thereto, the applicant moved a fresh bail application before the Special Court under the MPID Act, which stood rejected by order dated 05th May, 2021.

(4) The informant in the present case is an Auditor who had prepared an Audit Report in respect of Anand Sai Urban Credit Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Society) for the period 2017-18. During the relevant period, the applicant was working as General Manager of the said Society and it was recorded in the Audit Report that the Society through its office bearers and the alleged involvement of the applicant, had misappropriated amount to the extent of Rs.4,08,00,000 (Rupees Four Crores and eight Lakhs). On this basis, the aforesaid FIR dated 28th December, 2020, stood registered against the office bearers of the Society as well as the applicant. The allegations in the FIR against the applicant are to the effect that he was party to illegal advancement of amounts by the Society to one Dakshayani Group. It was alleged that various amounts in cash totalling Rs.4 Crores were illegally advanced to the said Dakshayani Group during the said period and that further amount of Rs.8 Lakhs was advanced, by a cheque which was signed by the applicant along with co-accused person. It was alleged that the said huge amount was misappropriated, thereby causing grave loss to the depositors of the said Society. On this basis, aforesaid offences were registered. The Special Court rejected the bail application of the applicant after filing of charge-sheet, on the basis that sufficient material was placed on record to indicate prima facie direct involvement of the applicant in the misappropriation of the aforesaid amount.

(5) Mr. D.V. Chavan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant had worked with the Bank of Maharashtra and he had retired from the post of Assistant General Manager of the said Bank in the year 2011. It was submitted that the applicant had an absolutely clean and unblemished record during his entire period of service with the aforesaid Bank and that after his retirement, on 14th May, 2016, the applicant had joined service of the said Society as the General Manager. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the material on record would show that the applicant himself had sent communications to the office bearers of the Society, including the co-accused persons, regarding the inappropriate procedures being followed in the functioning of the Society. It was the applicant who had specifically stated in written communications that relevant documents including vouchers pertaining to cash amounts given to the Dakshayani Group were not properly maintained in the record of the Society, which was illegal. It was further submitted that even the Audit Report submitted by the informant did not show the involvement of the applicant, insofar as cash amounts being advanced to the Dakshayani Group were concerned. As regards the cheque of Rs.8 Lakhs given to the said Group, it was submitted that blank cheques signed by the applicant were kept with the accountant for disbursing amounts to depositors and that one such cheque may have been misused, for which the