1 Cri.B.A.No.462/22­Ex.1 Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No. 462/2022

Malhari Bhaguji Mate .. Applicant / Accused.

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra through Police Inspector, Adgaon Police Station, Nashik. (Cr. No.I 158/2021)
.. Prosecution

Order below Exh.1.

1.This is the subsequent bail application filed by the applicant/accused under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on regular bail who was arrested in the aforesaid Crime registered at Adgaon Police Station, for the offence punishable under section 420, 409, 468 r/w. 34 of the IPC. His previous bail application was rejected by this Court on 14.03.2022.

2.This is the case of embezzlement of funds of Rs. 2,76,01,040/­ by the Directors, Branch Manager, staff members, Recovery Officers and the beneficiaries of the Society by name Durga Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Adgaon, Tal. & Dist. Nashik.

3.The learned counsel Mr. P.R.Shejwal appearing for the applicant/accused has argued that applicant has not committed any offence. He is not concerned with the crime. The applicant is the Chairman of the Society since last 15 years. He has not participated in day to day affairs of the Society. As per the prosecution, he is the beneficiary of Rs.1,20,000/­ which he has already repaid to the Society. His custodial interrogation is already over. He is in custody for more than two months. His further detention is not warranted.

All the documentary evidence are with the investigating officer and nothing remains to be seized from the applicant. He has voluntarily surrendered before the Police. He has cooperated during the investigation. Considering the nature of the offence, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused. In support of his contention, he has relied on the case reported in Navnath Vs. State of Maharashtra, ALL MR (Cri) 2014 0 1804.

4.The Investigating Officer has filed his reply at Exh.5 and strongly opposed the application stating that the offence is serious in nature and applicant is the key accused in this crime. There was misappropriation of funds to the tune of Crores of Rupees. He further submitted that applicant alongwith accused No.1 issued cheque of Rs.5,00,000/­ to one Vishal Bagade on 31.03.2012 and the said Vishal Bagade had withdrawn the said amount for his own benefit. So also, there are withdrawals of amount of Rs.41,40,000/­ by co­accused Ravindra Madhwai and Balasaheb Madhwai. The applicant has not cooperated with the investigation. The misappropriation started from the year 2008 when applicant was the Director of the said Society and though he has knowledge of the same, he has not taken any efforts to stop such irregularities and illegalities. If applicant is released on bail, he may pressurize the witnesses and may tamper with evidence. The investigation is still in progress.

The Ld. APP Smt. Reshma Jadhav has strongly submitted her argument in the line with the say filed by the investigating officer vide Exh.6. The learned APP has stated that his anticipatory bail was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court considering his involvement. The offence is well planned with an intention to misappropriate the Society amount. The investigation is still going on.

In support of her contentions, she has relied on the reported cases in the case of Kalyanchandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Rajan @ Pappu Yadav, Cr.Appeal No.1129/2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.01.2005 and Pundlik Gavade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) ALL MR (Cri) 1866 and submitted that as the offence is of serious nature and role of applicant, application be rejected.

5.After going through submission of the learned counsels and on perusal case diary ,it appears that the role assigned to the applicant is that he along with the Bank Manager had favored one Vishal Bagde and caused loss to the Society. His signature is also appearing on the fake receipts of the Fixed Deposits. Though he has paid an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/­ but this does not exonerate him criminal liability. The learned defence has relied on the authority of Navnath Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court has released the accused on bail in similar matter. I have gone through the said case, no doubt the facts are similar but in the instant case, the amount is huge and the investigation is still in progress. Further his earlier application was rejected on 14.03.2022
and there is no change in circumstances. Hence, I am not inclined to grant the application. Hence, following order.

O r d e r

Application is rejected.

Digitally signed by NAIR NAIR SANDHYA SANDHYA SUNIL SUNIL Date: 2022.04.28 ( Smt. S.S. Nair )
15:43:02 -0600 Date : 28.04.2022. Addl. Sessions Judge­4, Nashik.