5&6-ABA1447-22+.DOC

Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1447 OF 2022

Suresh Babulal Ghiya & ors.

...Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

…Respondent

WITH

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1449 OF 2022

Ramakant Vishwambhar Dadane & ors.

...Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

…Respondent

Mr. V. V. Gangurde, for the Applicants.

Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for the State/Respondent.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED:

13^th JUNE, 2022

ORDER:-

1.

The applicants have preferred these applications for

pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.115 of 2022,

registered with Upnagar Police Station, Nashik, for the

offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 406

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the

Penal Code”).

2.

The above numbered FIR is lodged by Mr. Rajesh

Panditrao Gaikwad, Auditor, attached to the office of the

Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik. The

1/4

5&6-ABA1447-22+.DOC

crux of the allegations against the applicants is that prior to

2008 the applicants were office bearers of Siddheshwar

Cooperative Credit Society. The District Deputy Registrar,

Cooperative Societies, passed an order under Section 81(6) of

the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (“the Act,

1960”), for re-audit of the accounts of the said society. Post

re-audit, report was submitted on 28^th February, 2022,

pointing out financial irregularities and misappropriation

under Section 81(5)(b) of the Act, 1960. In sum and

substance, the re-audit for the period 1^st April, 1995 to 31^st

March, 2008 revealed fraud to the tune of Rs.46,25,233/-

under various counts.

3.

By an order dated 3^rd June, 2022, the interim

protection granted by the learned Sessions Judge was

continued.

4.

Heard Mr. Gangurde, the learned Counsel for the

applicants and the learned APP for the State.

5.

The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that

the applicants are being hauled up for a stale incident, with

an oblique motive. It was submitted that the re-audit in

respect of the transactions was ordered after more than 12

years and the report came to be filed after about four years.

2/4

5&6-ABA1447-22+.DOC

The learned Counsel invited the attention of the Court to an

order dated 27^th May, 2022, whereby the co-accused were

granted pre-arrest bail. It would be suffice to extract the

observations of this Court in paragraph no.2 of the said

order:

“2.

The applicants are arraigned as accused in connection

with embezzlement of funds and misappropriation of

amount belonging to the Society, when they were working as

Directors for distinct period, prior to 2008 when the Society

was taken over by the administrator and subsequently, from

the year 2017 it is undergoing liquidation. In the accusation

faced by the applicants, which are stale in nature, and

particularly when now the Society itself is under liquidation,

with all necessary documents being available for

investigation in the office of the Society now under the

control of the liquidator, the custodial interrogation of the

applicants is not warranted.

However, the learned APP state that presence of the

applicants in the police station is necessary for obtaining

their specimen signatures so that the bulk of documents

which are available in the office of the society, on the basis

of which the applicants face accusation of mismanaging the

affairs of the society, causing loss in the society can be

looked into.”

6.

The aforesaid reasons apply with equal force to the

applicants, who are similarly circumstanced. The sheer lapse

of time and the stale nature of the accusation, coupled with

the fact that the entire record is in the custody of the

Liquidator, render custodial interrogation of the applicants

unwarranted. I am thus persuaded to exercise the discr