B.A.1704/2022
..1..
Order
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1704 OF 2022
( CNR NO.: MHCC020092772022 )
Rajendra Prabhakar Takke
Age: 59 years, Occ: Retired,
R/o: Room No.1604,B Wing, 16th floor,
Shrimotanka CHS, Dattaram Lad Marg,
Chinchpokali ( E)
Mumbai 400 012.
…Applicant/Accused.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
( At the instance of N.M. Joshi Marg P.Stn.
Vide C.R. No.204/2018 ..
E.O.W. D.C.B, C.I.D C.R. No. 14/2020) …Respondent/State.
Appearance:
Mr. P.V.Vare Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
Mrs. Ashwini Raykar, APP for the State/respondent.
CORAM : S.M. MENJOGE, THE ADDL.
JUDGE (C.R.17)
DATE : 28/07/2022.
ORDER
1.
This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail by
applicant/accused Rajendra Prabhakar Takke in C.R. No. 204/2018
registered at N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station and E.O.W. D.C.B, C.I.D
C.R. No. 14/2020 U/s. 409, 420, 465, 468, 471(A) and 120(B) of
Indian Penal Code.
B.A.1704/2022
2.
..2..
Order
Perused the application, reply of Investigating officer and
documents on record. I heard both sides.
3.
Mr. P.V.Vare, Advocate for applicant/accused has submitted that
applicant is falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is retired in the
year, 2018. Till that time no illegality or irregularity was noticed during
the internal audit, audit of RBI. All the documents are in possession of
bank and Investigating officer. Nothing is required to be seized from
the applicant. As he is retired from service, he cannot tamper with
evidence. Applicant relied upon Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI
SLP( Cri) 5191/2021. Applicant is in jail since 6.6.2022. His further
detention is not required. No purpose would be served by keeping the
applicant
behind
the
bar.
Hence,
he
prayed
to
release
the
applicant/accused on bail.
4.
Mrs. Ashwini Raykar, APP for the State has submitted that offence
is serious and the investigation is not completed.
Therefore, if the
accused is released on bail he may pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
Hence, she prayed to reject the application.
5.
I perused case diary and heard the advocate for the applicant and
A.P.P. for the State. I have gone through the Law laid down in respect
of grant or refusal of bail, in following cases by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court :
1]
Sanjay Chandra Vs C.B.I., (2012) 1 SCC 40
2]
Moti Ram Vs State of M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47
3]
Babu Singh Vs State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579
B.A.1704/2022
..3..
Order
4]
Vaman Narain Ghiya Vs State of Rajasthan,
MANU/SC/8394/2008 : (2009) 2 SCC 281;
5]
Siddharam Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra,
MANU/SC/1021/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 694,
6]
Vivek KumarVs State of U. P.,(2000) 9 SCC 443
7]
Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT, Delhi,
MANU/SC/0193/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 280;
8]
State of U.P. Vs Amarmani Tripathi,
MANU/SC/0677/2005 : (2005) 8 SCC 21;
9]
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi (2001)4 SCC 280
10]
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.(1978)1 SCC
118.
11]
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan
(2004) 7 SCC 528
12]
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh
(2002)3 SCC 598
13]
Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338.
14]
Neeru Yadav vs State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 3703
15]
Sharad Kumar..Vs…C.B.I, MANU/DE/2374/2011
and considered following factors while deciding this bail application :
(i)
Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii)
Nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii)
Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv)
Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v)
Character, Behaviour, Means, Position and Standing of the
B.A.1704/2022
..4..
Order
accused;
(vi)
Likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with
and
(viii) Danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
6.
In the light of law laid down in above cases, I perused the case
diary. On perusal of the same, it is found that present applicant was
working as Branch Manager at The City Co.Operative Bank during the
period of alleged misappropriation. He resigned from the service in the
year 2018. Till 31.3.2018, number of NPA loan accounts were 190. It is
fond that out of the same, in 56 cases loan was disbursed illegally. As
per report of M/s.Pandit and Pandit Chartered Accountants, valuation of
mortgaged property is reduced much more. And amount received from
sale of mortgaged property is very less. It is the submission of the
applicant that he was only forwarding loan proposal to higher
authorities and Board of Directors used to sanction it. According to the
applicant is not loan sanctioning authority and Directors who
sanctioned the loans are not yet arrested. But, learned A.P.P. and I.O.
produced case diary which runs into morethan 800 pages and shown me
the loan proposal forwarded by this applicant as Branch Manager. Out
of 56 loan cases, in 24 cases loan proposal were forwarded to higher
authorities without verifying documents and capacity of repayment of
proposed borrowers. I perused loan proposal forms, most of them are
left blank, there is no description of movable or immovable properties of
borrowers. Not only this, he was directed to take necessary documents
from borrowers before disbursement of loans but, he directly disbursed
B.A.1704/2022
..5..
Order
the loan amount. Applicant has not obtained search report/ title report
and has not verified ownership of immovable property and helped the
borrower to secure loan amounts. It is also appearing that applicant
sanctioned cash credit and loan cases, and to avoid the NPA, he
increased C.C. limits temporarily and new loans are sanctioned to those
borrowers again and transferred said amount to NPA loan accounts of
those borrowers. It is also found during audit that, while sending
proposal of loans, applicant has not verified that mortgaged for
obtaining the loan were already mortgaged with another bank, For
example, while forwarding Credit/loan proposal of Rajan Sawan, Vilas
Sawant submitted NOC of Tantia Jogani Ind, Premises Co. operative
Society to mortgage his property or to create charge on his property.
During investigation society replied that said NOC is fake and said
property is already mortgaged with Dombiwali Nagari Sahkari Bank.
During the audit, it is noticed that persons whose loan proposals were
forwarded by this applicant and to whom loan were sanctioned were
guarantors to another borrower of same bank. Investigating officer has
obtained list of duties and responsibilities of branch manager. Those are
as under,
A]
Disbursement of loan as per sanctioned order after obtaining all
papers/ security documents.
B]
To scrutinize loan proposals, documentation from guarantors and
borrowers, pre sanction and post sanction visits to borrowers,
disburse the loans sanctions as per delegation and to complete
paper works.
C]
To make regular visits to borrowers, inspect stock.
D]
To ensure that 100% KYC compliance is made of all accounts
holders.
B.A.1704/2022
7.
..6..
Order
In the present case, applicant failed to perform his duty and
responsibility and this has helped borrowers to obtain loans causing loss
to said bank. Not only this, Investigating officer has recorded the
statement of Pramod Ranpura ( Guarantor in 2 loan cases), Binitkumar
Singh ( Guarantor in 2 loan cases), They stated that they were working
as driver of Hitesh Pandya and Hitesh Pandya had obtained their
signature on account opening form. Thereafter, this applicant had been
to the office of Hitesh Pandya and obtained signatures of these
witnesses on forms and blank cheques. Huge loan were advanced in
their names and same is withdrawn by cheques obtained. Those loans
were not repaid. When these three witnesses received notice of
repayment of loan, at that time they came to know that loans are
sanctioned to them but in fact, they had not received any amount. They
are working as drivers and earning meager salary how loans of Crores of
rupees came to be sanctioned and disbursed. This clearly shows,
involvement of applicant in whole transaction. Applicant submitted that
Harish Pardhi is released on bail by learned Magistrate in this crime and
hence, applicant prayed for grant of bail on the ground of parity also.
However, role of Harish Pardhi is different. He was loan agent and used
to submit proposal for loan and he used to take 2% commission from
borrower. He was not sanctioning or forwarding authority. Here,
applicant was bank Manager and had to forward loan application after
verification. But, he has not done so. In case of P.Chidambaram vs
Directorate of Enforcement (2021)13 SCC 791,
it is held that
economic offences cannot be classified as such as it may involve various
activities and may differ from case to case. Considering all these facts,
gravity and seriousness of offence, and fact that investigation is going
on, accused is not entitled for bail, therefore, I pass following order.
B.A.1704/2022
..7..
Order
ORDER
Bail Application No.1704/2022 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Date of sign
: 28.07.2022.
: 28.07.2022.
: 28.07.2022
Digitally signed
by SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO
SHASHANK
MENJOGE
MANOHARRAO
Date:
MENJOGE
2022.07.28
17:04:34
+0530
( S.M. MENJOGE )
Addl. Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
B.A.1704/2022
..8..
Order
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
28.07.2022.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)
Mrs. S.S.Sawant
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
S.M. MENJOGE, Addl. Judge.,City Civil
& Sessions Court, (C.R.No.17).
Date of pronouncement of /Order 28.07.2022.
Order signed by P.O. on
28.07.2022.
order uploaded on
28.07.2022.