Cri. Bail Appln. No.580 of 2022 (Or. Exh.4)
1
IN THE OURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK,
AT – NASHIK.
(Presided over by Mr. M. H. Shaikh)
Criminal Bail Application No.580 of 2022
CNR No.MHNS010023262022
Shirish Narayan Dandane
Age : 68 Years, Occu.: Nil
R/o : Chandranil Bungalow,
Lingayat Colony, Nashik­Road,
Nashik.

… Applicant/Accused.

V/S
State of Maharashtra
Through – P.I. Upnagar Police
Station (CR No.I­115/2022)
… Respondent/State.

Appearance :
Ld. Adv. Shri. Shridhar P. Mane for Applicant/Accused.
Ld. A.P.P. Smt. Aparna Patil for State.
Shri. Chaudhari, API (I.O.) present.
ORDER BELOW EXH. No.1
(Delivered on 19th May, 2022)
1.

This is an application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code for grant of pre­arrest bail in C.R. No.I­115 /2022
registered with the respondent/Nashik­Road Police Station for an
offence punishable under 420, 468, 471 and 406 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.

Cri. Bail Appln. No.580 of 2022 (Or. Exh.4)
2
2.

Perusal of the F.I.R. reflects that, applicant was one of the
Directors of the Siddheshwar Co­operative Credit Society Ltd.
Deolaligaon, Tal. & Dist. Nashik. Administrator was appointed in the
Year­2008 over the said Society. Thereafter, as per the orders of D.D.R.,
Nashik, re­audit was directed and accordingly the complainant
conducted audit and found certain misappropriation of funds by the
Directors and Managers of the said Society. The complainant reported
the matter to the D.D.R. and after obtaining permission from the D.D.R.
filed the F.I.R. at the respondent/Police Station.
3.

It is the case of the applicant that, he was a Director of the
said Society from the Year­1996 to 1998. Since the Year 2007­08, there
is no transaction as the Administrator was appointed. There is a delay of
14 years in lodging the F.I.R. Role of applicant is not spelt out in the
F.I.R. except the fact that, he was a Director. Investigation is based on
documentary evidence. All documents are seized by the Police. There is
no criminal antecedence. Applicant is an old person and ready to help
the I.O. in the investigation. Custodial interrogation is not necessary.
Therefore, prayed to allow the application.
4.

Respondent filed their say vide Exh.07 and strongly
objected on the ground that, without obtaining security the loans were
disbursed to the persons, whose addresses are not mentioned, so also
vouchers were not taken. The loans were disbursed outside the
jurisdiction. The small scale loans, which were disbursed on the Fixed
Deposits, but those Fixed Deposits are not their in the Society.
Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary.
Therefore, prayed to reject the application.

Cri. Bail Appln. No.580 of 2022 (Or. Exh.4)
3
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant and Ld. A.P.P. for State at
length. Perused the F.I.R., Police­papers and Case Diary produced for
inspection by the I.O.
6.

Upon hearing and going through the material placed on
record, what can be gathered is that, the Administrator came to be
appointed on the said Society in the Year­2008. Thereafter, it seems
that,
in the Year­2017 by the orders of the D.D.R., re­audit was
conducted by the complainant and he found certain irregularity and
misappropriation of funds by the Directors and the Managers. It is a fact
that there is a delay, but it seems that when the D.D.R. found certain
irregularity, he ordered re­audit and after submission of report by the
complainant to the D.D.R., permission was granted to lodge the F.I.R.
So it can not be said that, there is an intentional delay.
7.

The only question, which is to be dealt with by this Court is
whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Court has
to balance the liberty of the applicant guaranteed by the constitutional
and also see that, the investigation of the case progresses. This Court
finds that, custodial interrogation of the applicant is warranted because
of the three grounds. The audit report was submitted on the three
grounds. Some of the loans were disbursed without security and the
addresses are not there on the record. Therefore, the I.O. is required to
interrogate the applicant as to whether the persons named whose
addresses are not there, is a real persons or a fictitious persons.
Moreover, why the loans were disbursed outside the jurisdiction and
what happened about the guarantee given by the Niphad Sahakari
Cri. Bail Appln. No.580 of 2022 (Or. Exh.4)
4
Sakhar Karkhana for repayment of the loans is to be investigated.
Further, why security was not taken while disbursing the loans.
Therefore, this Court finds that custodial interrogation is warranted.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to invoke the discretion of the
granting bail in favour of the applicant. In the result, the application
fails. Hence, the order.
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No.580 of 2022
stands rejected and disposed off accordingly.
MUSHTAQUE
HUSSAIN
SHAIKH
Place : Nashik.
Date : 19/05/2022
Digitally signed by
MUSHTAQUE
HUSSAIN SHAIKH
Date: 2022.05.19
16:39:00 +0530
(M. H. Shaikh)
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.