ABA694.22, etc.

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

19 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.694/2022

KAILAS TUKARAM GAIKWAD

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

WITH

ABA/306 OF 2020

ROHIDAS HARIBHAU MOTE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

WITH

ABA/647/2022

MANIK MADHAV MOTE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

WITH

ABA/644/2022

MEERABAI W/O SUNIL MOTE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for applicant in ABA No.694/2022;

Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate for applicants in ABA No.306/2020,

647/2022 and 644/2022

Ms. V.S. Choudhari, A.P.P. for respondent - State

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 13^th June, 2022

ABA694.22, etc.

(2)

P.C.

1.

The applicants in all these applications are the members of the

managing committee of Bhairavnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat

Sanstha Ltd., Wadala Bahiroba, Taluka Nevasa, District Ahmednagar,

registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative

Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the society”). It has been alleged

against them that they had invited depositors to deposit money with

the society with a promise that their amount would be returned with

interest. Believing in the promise made by the management of the

society, various depositors have deposited the amount in the said

society. However, when the deposits were matured, the money with

interest was not returned to the depositors. Time and again the

depositors made request to the management of the society to repay

their money with interest, but the management failed to repay the

money. Therefore, private complaints were filed before the learned

Magistrate. The learned Magistrate was pleased to order an inquiry

under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

thereafter the crimes have been registered against the applicants.

2.

It has been specifically submitted by the learned Counsel for

ABA694.22, etc.

(3)

the applicants that for the same nature of allegations, the Directors

are facing number of first information reports as have been alleged by

the different depositors at different police stations. He would point

out that the audit of the society was done. In the audit report, it has

been revealed that there is no misappropriation of the funds but there

was mismanagement. He also added that the proceedings under

Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act have been

initiated against the defaulters and the certificates have been obtained

and an inquiry under Section 88 of the said Act has also been initiated

against the management including the applicants and action is likely

to be commenced towards their personal property. The personal

property of the applicants is at stake, which may be attached for the

recovery of the amount to be paid to the depositors. He made a

statement that around Rs.40,00,000/- have been returned to the

different investors.

3.

He would refer to the earlier orders passed by this Court in the

similarly situated cases and would submit that the protection was

granted to the employees of the Bank also. In the absence of any

misappropriation, there may not be a sufficient ground to the

ABA694.22, etc.

(4)

Investigation to have the custodial interrogation of the applicants.

The applicants are from the respected families having no antecedents

at their discredit. The applicants are making every endeavour to

recover the loan advanced to the borrowers and to repay the amount

to the depositors. The applicants are not the beneficiaries of the

amount deposited by the depositors. The applicants are ready to

abide by the conditions if imposed while enlarging them on

anticipatory bail. He would submit that these are the fit cases to

release the applicants on anticipatory bail.

4.

Per contra, the learned A.P