IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1070 OF 2020

Ajay Chandrakant Akade,

Age : 53 years, Occu. Retired,

R/o 11, Rajani, Shinde Mala,

Sawedi Road, Ahmednagar,

District Ahmednagar

APPLICANT

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,

through Police Station Officer,

CIDCO Police Station,

Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

RESPONDENT

AND

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1078 OF 2020

Chandrakant Surajmal Anecha,

Age : 73 years, Occu. Retired,

R/o House No.625, Anecha Niwas,

Near Tuljapur Devi Mandir,

Civil HUDCO, Sawedi, Ahmednagar,

District Ahmednagar

APPLICANT

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,

through Police Station Officer,

CIDCO Police Station,

Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

RESPONDENT

----

Miss Pradnya Talekar for Talekar and Associates, Advocate

for the applicants

Mr. S.B. Narwade, A.P.P. for the respondent/State

----

2

ABA1070-1078-2020

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE :

27.11.2020

COMMON ORDER :

By way of these applications, two of the accused from Crime

No.I-827 of 2019, registered with CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, for the

offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of

Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short, “MPID Act”),

are seeking bail in the event of their arrest in connection with that crime.

2.

The FIR has been lodged by one of the depositors of Shree

Mahalaxmi Multi State Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Ahmednagar, Branch

at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as “Credit Society”). As the name

suggests, it is a Multi State Cooperative Society duly registered under the

Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (“the Act”, for short). The

informant alleges that pursuant to the rosy promise of handsome returns in

the form of sumptuous interest assured by the Credit Society, she made

several deposits in aggregate for an amount of Rs.5,61,332/- by way of

thirteen fixed deposits. However, inspite of the maturity date having expired,

the Credit Society failed to refund the money. Initially, the Chairman and

Directors of the Credit Society assured to repay the money by selling land but

failed to live upto the promise and lateron even turned a blind eye.

3

ABA1070-1078-2020

3.

Miss Talekar, learned Advocate for the applicants, in both these

applications, vehemently submits that though the applicants were members

and directors of the Credit Society at some point of time, applicant Akade

had tendered resignation on 12.07.2013, which was duly accepted by the

Board of Directors by resolution of the even date. Similarly applicant Anecha

had tendered resignation on 02.03.2014. There is a reference about their

resignations even in the Statutory Audit report of the year 2013-2014. She

would then submit that since in the FIR the period of offence is mentioned as

21.06.2016 to 23.10.2016, during which period neither of the applicants was

a director, they cannot be blamed for the mismanagement and the alleged

offence.

4.

The learned Advocate would then submit that going by the

nature of the crime alleged to have been committed, it is a matter of

resorting to audit and primarily only the documents and record of the Credit

Society are to be referred, none of which is in the custody of the applicants.

Their custodial interrogation, therefore, is not necessary. They are aged 53

years and 73 years, respectively and ready to cooperate the Investigating

Officer. They would be put to disrepute if they are taken in custody. Following

the principles laid down in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs.

State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2011 (1) SCC 694 , they are entitled to claim

anticipatory bail.

5.

The learned A.P.P. strongly opposes the applications. He submits

4

ABA1070-1078-2020

that it is a serious economic offence, which needs to be investigated by

resorting to forensic audit. Though the allegations in the FIR only refer to

the offence