1. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 0454/2023 and 0455/2023 registered with CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Section s 406 , 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 217, 120-B read with Section 3 4 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act.

2. Applicant is the District Deputy Registrar of co-operative societies and at the relevant time was posted at Aurangabad. First Information Reports came to be lodged by the Special Auditors in respect of Adarsh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha alleging mis- appropriation of deposits of thousands of depositors. It is alleged that the directors of the said society in utter disregard of the rules disbursed loan without ensuring return thereof and without obtaining adequate security. Allegations are also made against the auditors of the society for the period from 2017-2018 to 2020-2021 for not reporting the irregularities to the District Deputy Registrar and thereby having failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 81 (5)(B) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (for short “the Act”).

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report nor in the charge-sheet fled against the accused. It is his submission that in absence of any specifc allegation made in the said report as well as non-disclosure of the role of the applicant in the crime, it is not open for the prosecution to seek custodial interrogation of the applicant. It is his further submission that the applicant has taken cognizance of the reports/complaints received by him from time to time and has initiated action as contemplated by the Act. To support his submission, he drew attention of the Court to various orders passed by the applicant directing inquiry, special audit, test audit etc. It is submitted that as per the rules, applicant was not expected to lodge any report unless the test audit is conducted and hence it cannot be said that there was any inaction on the part of the applicant in the present case. He drew attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1300/2023 with other connected applications wherein the auditors were granted anticipatory bail with observation that non-compliance of Section 81 (5)(B) the Act will not constitute any independent offence under Indian Penal Code . It is his further submission that the prosecution, while opposing applications for anticipatory bail of auditors, has specifcally averred that one of the auditors though is claimed to have submitted special report in compliance of Section 81 (5)(B) of the Act, however, infact such report is not received. It is his submission that the entire record is already seized and as such custody of the applicant is not necessary.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Jarare for the applicant adopted the above arguments and in addition thereto he submitted that Section 81 (3)(C) of the Act mandates conduct of test audit before lodging any First Information Report in respect of alleged crime committed in respect of the affairs of the society. It is his submission that during the relevant period when the loans in question were disbursed, applicant was not functioning as District Deputy Registrar.

5. Learned Government Pleader opposed the application by submitting that the District Deputy Registrar for the period prior to the present applicant has already been arrested and sent to police custody in connection with this crime. According to him,