Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1968
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.G. Avachat, J.
Deepak - Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police - Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 132 of 2023
Decided On : 04-05-2023
V.S. Wakale, Advocate, S.S. Munot, Advocate, Y.V. Kakde, Advocate, R.R. Karpe, Advocate, A.S. Shinde, Advocate, V.D. Hon, Advocate, A.V. Hon, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The court underscored the principle that anticipatory bail may be denied in cases of significant economic offences where the applicant holds a position of authority and responsibility, while lesser involvement may warrant bail.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - Sec. 438 CrPC, Ss. 409, 420, 465, 477-A IPC, Sec. 3 M.P.I.D. Act - The court discussed the provisions of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the CrPC, emphasizing the need for a balance between individual liberty and the seriousness of the economic offences alleged. The interpretation of the M.P.I.D. Act was crucial, as the court determined that the Credit Society's operations fell under its purview, impacting the applicants' culpability. The court highlighted the roles of the Chairman and other office bearers in the alleged misappropriation, ultimately denying bail to the Chairman while granting it to the other applicants based on their lesser involvement.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants faced apprehension of arrest in connection with a significant economic offence involving the alleged misappropriation of over Rs. 7.3 crores from a Co-operative Credit Society. The FIR was lodged by a government auditor following a re-audit that revealed financial discrepancies attributed to the applicants, including the Chairman and auditors of the society.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Chairman, Bhausaheb, was significantly involved in the day-to-day operations and had authorized substantial withdrawals, indicating his complicity in the alleged misappropriation. In contrast, the court recognized the lesser involvement of the other applicants, particularly the auditors, who acted based on the documents provided to them.
Issues: The primary issues revolved around the applicability of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the CrPC, the interpretation of the M.P.I.D. Act concerning the Credit Society, and the extent of involvement of each applicant in the alleged economic offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the Chairman's direct involvement in the financial operations and his role in signing off on the balance sheets indicated a higher degree of culpability, justifying the denial of anticipatory bail. Conversely, the auditors' reliance on provided documents and their lack of control over the society's operations warranted the granting of bail.
Final Decision: The anticipatory bail applications of the auditors and the cashier were granted, while the application of the Chairman was dismissed, reflecting the court's assessment of their respective levels of involvement in the alleged offences.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Criminal Applications No.530/2023, 563/2023 and 1177/2023 are allowed. The interveners are permitted to assist learned A.P.P.
2. These applications, under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are being decided by this common order since the applicants therein claim to have apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.1155/2022, registered with Rahuri Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Ss. 409, 420, 465, 477-A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal code and Sec. 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.
3. The First Information Report (F.I.R.) has been lodged by a Government auditor on instructions of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The informant completed reaudit of "Rahuri Taluka Rajmata Jijau Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit" (for short, 'Credit Society') for the period from 1/4/2016 to 31/3/2021 and then lodged the F.I.R. against the applicants and some others. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that, a sum of Rs.7,37,62,078.00 (Rupees Seven Crores Thirty Seven Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand and Seventy Eight) has been misappropriated by the applicants namely Bhausaheb Tukaram Yeole and Surekha Sandip Sangale and other office bearers of the Credit Society. The other applicants herein are the auditors of Co-operative Society. They are alleged to have audited the accounts of the Credit Society, however, gave reports concealing misappropriation of the funds. They are also alleged to have been hand in gloves with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Manager of the Credit Society in siphoning of the Society funds.
4. The details of misappropriation of the amounts are as under :-
5. Heard. Shri Rahul R. Karpe, learned counsel would submit that, the applicant Bhausaheb Yeole is a man with social status. He decided to start a Co-operative Credit Society with good intention. The applicant himself had earlier lodged the complaint against the Manager Phatak with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The applicant had even lodged a police report in that regard. According to learned counsel, it is the Manager (co-accused) who is exclusively responsible for the alleged misappropriation. The applicant and other office bearers of the Credit Society raised funds by self contribution amounting to Rs.1,50,00,000.00 and disbursed the same to the investors. The applicant Bhausaheb had his own deposits amounting to Rs.17,00,000.00. The same has also been appropriated. A land of N.A. potential standing in the name of wife of the applicant was offered as a security. The properties of the applicant and other office bearers of the Credit Society are being attached. The office of the Sub-Registrar has been informed not to register any transaction in relation to the immovable properties of the applicant Bhausaheb and other office bearers of the Credit Society. According to learned counsel, the provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (M.P.I.D. Act) do not apply to the present case since a Credit Society has been controlled by the State Government. The definition of the financial institution given in the M.P.I.D. Act was, therefore, adverted to. According to learned counsel, the Administrator has been appointed to look after the affairs of the Credit Society. The amounts advanced as loan would be recovered in due course. The Credit Society would regain good financial status in immediate future. According to him, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. He, therefore, urged for grant of the application.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Wakale for the applicant Surekha Sandip Sangale would submit that, she (Surekha) was serving as a Cashier at a monthly pay of Rs.4500.00 only. There is nothing to indicate a single farthing to have reached her (Cashiner's) hand. He would further submit that, the applicant being a woman, be protected.
7. Mr. Hon, learn
