1
Cri. Bail Application No.1272/2020
Shridhar Rajdhar Sonawane
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
(Sarkarwada Police Stn.)

.. Applicant
.. Respondent
Order below Exh.1
1.

The applicant has filed this application under Section 438
of Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest by Sarkarwada Police Station in
C.R. No.I­260/2018 for the offences punishable u/s. 406, 420 r/w 34 of
IPC and u/s. 3 & 4 of MPID Act.
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that :
The informant Pragnya Rajesh Shah invested certain
amount in the name of her daughter and mother to the extent of
Rs.2,99,317/­ in Vardhaman Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit,
Nashik (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Patsanstha’). However, when the
informant tried to withdraw the invested amount she was not paid the
same. The patsanstha issued certain cheques towards repayment of
the invested amount and even the said cheque got dishonoured.
Thereafter, on the report of the informant the aforesaid offence is
registered against Patsanstha and its Directors.
3.

The Ld. Advocate Shri.J.S.Vaishampayan appearing for
the applicant submitted that name of the applicant is not there in the
FIR. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that when repayment was
defaulted by the Patsanstha, at that time, the present applicant was
not the office bearer of the Patsanstha.

2
4.

The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the present
applicant became the Director of the said patsanstha in the year 2018,
and thereafter administrator was appointed. The Ld. Advocate further
submitted that in the audit report for the period of 01.04.2017 to
31.03.2018, which was completed on 10.07.2018, the auditor has
observed that there were loans disbursed to the extent of 335.46 lacs.
It was further observed that since no concrete steps was taken to
recover the said loan amount the patsanstha was facing financial
problem. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that in the said audit
report it was further observed that no irregularity in the transactions
have been noticed and there was no misuse of the funds of patsanstha.
The Ld. Advocate further submitted that in the audit report it was
further observed that there was no irregularity of the accounts of
patsanstha.

5.

The Ld. Advocate accordingly submitted that as per the
audit report there was no fraudulent transaction or misuse of the
funds. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that only because concrete
steps were not taken up for recovery of the loan amount does not mean
that the directors of the patsanstha have committed fraud. The Ld.
Advocate further submitted that as per the audit report as on
31.03.2018 action was initiated against 63 borrowers for recovery of
the loan. In support of his contention, the Ld. Advocate relied on the
copy of the audit report.

6.

The Ld. Advocate further submitted that administrator
has already been appointed in the year 2018 in respect of the said
patsanstha and administrator Shri.S.T.Shinde has been looking after
3
the administration of the said patsanstha and is in possession of all
the documents. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the original
complainant Sau.Pragnya Rajesh Shah have already been paid the
invested amount alongwith the interest thereon by the administrator.

7.

The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the present
applicant is more than 70 years of age. The Ld. Advocate further
submitted that even the present applicant at no point of time has
taken any loan from the said patsanstha and has not received any
amount in any manner whatsoever from the patsanstha. The Ld.
Advocate
accordingly
submitted
that
no
case
for
custodial
interrogation is made out. Accordingly, Ld. Advocate submitted that
the applicant be released on pre­arrest bail.

8.
serious
Learned APP Sau.Bhide submitted that the offence is
in
nature.

The
Ld.

APP
submitted
that
around
Rs.3,35,00,000/­ is to be recovered from the borrowers and for the
same no concrete step has been taken by the Patsanstha. The Ld. APP
further submitted that around 944 members of the patsanstha have
made deposit of more than Rs.95,00,000/­ and they have not been
returned the said amount. The Ld. APP further submitted that loan
has been disbursed even without taking any security from the
borrowers. The Ld. APP accordingly submitted that application be
rejected.

9.

In view of the facts mentioned in the application, following
points arise for my determination and I have recorded my findings
thereon for the reasons stated below :
4
POINTS
(1)
(2)
FINDINGS
Whether the applicant is entitled for
pre­arrest bail ?

..

Yes
What order ?

..

As per final order.

REASONS
10.

Heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the applicant and
the learned APP.

11.

It is well settled principle that, various considerations for
grant of anticipatory bail include :
a)
Whether accusation are made with ulterior motive and with
intention to injured and humiliate the applicant.
b)
Antecedents of the applicant and his possibility to flee from
justice.
c)
Nature and seriousness of the proposed charges.

d)
Reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with,
e)
The larger interest of the public or the State.

f)
No prejudice would be caused to free, fair and full investigation
and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and
unjustified detention of the accused.
g)
Reasonable
apprehension
of
tampering
of
witness
or
apprehension of threat to the complainant.

12.

Perusal of the investigation papers show that the offence
was registered on 29.08.2018, on the report of one Sau.Pragnya Rajesh
Shah. Perusal of the investigation papers further shows that vide
5
letter dated 16.11.2018, the then administrator of the patsanstha
Shri.P.R.Shimpi has intimated Senior Inspector of Police, Sarkarwada
Police Station that the amount deposited by the informant through
her family members was paid to them alongwith the interest.

13.

Perusal of the investigation papers further show that
administrator has been appointed in respect of the said patsanstha in
the year 2018. All the administration of the patsanstha is being looked
after by the administrator and all the documents in respect of the
working of the said patsanstha is in the possession of the said
administrator. In fact as mentioned hereinabove some of the
depositors including the informant have also been paid the invested
amount alongwith the interest.

14.

Perusal of the audit report copy of which has been filed by
the Ld. Advocate Shri. Vaishyampan as well as by the Investigating
Officer shows that though some loans have been disbursed without
taking proper security and concrete step has not been taken to recover
the loan amount but it has also been observed that there was no
irregularity in maintenance of the account and there was no
misappropriation of the funds of the patsanstha. Perusal of the audit
report shows that some of the loans have been disbursed in the year
2002, 2004 and till 2011. The said loans disbursed to almost 25
persons have not been recovered. The said loans also include loans
against higher purchase, hypothecation and housing loans.
15.

The present applicant was director as on 31.03.2018 as per
the documents filed on record. However, as mentioned herein­above
6
most of the loans have been sanctioned in the year 2002 to 2011 and
the said borrowers have defaulted.

16.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the
investigation papers as well as the audit report filed on record, at this
stage, it appears that though there is no concrete steps taken for
recovery of all the loans disbursed and also certain loans have been
disbursed without taking any security, but there is nothing on record
to show that the present applicant is responsible for the irregularity
committed while disbursing the said loans. There is no specific
allegation made against the present applicant. As mentioned herein­
above the administrator of the said patsanstha has already paid the
deposit made by the informant and her family members. All the
documents in respect of the patsanstha are in possession of the
administrator since 2018.

17.

Considering the nature of the allegation against the
present applicant, in my opinion, no case for custodial interrogation is
made out.
18.

The applicant is already granted interim bail vide order
dated 23.09.2020. Hence, the same deserves to be confirmed. Hence I
pass the following order :
ORDER
1)
The application is allowed.

7
2)
In the event of arrest of the applicant in C.R. No.I­
260/2018 for the offences punishable u/s. 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and
u/s. 3 & 4 of MPID Act, Senior Police Inspector, Sarkarwada Police
Station is directed to release the applicants on executing P.R. & S.B.
of Rs.25,000/­ with one or two surety in the like amount.
3)
4)
The applicant :
(i)
are directed to report to the police station as and when
called by the Investigating Officer.

(ii)
shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts
to the Court or to any police officer.

(iii)
shall not leave India without previous permission of the
Court.
Inform concerned police station accordingly.

Santoshkumar
Tribhuandutt
Pandey
Nashik.
Date : 13­10­2020.

Digitally signed by
Santoshkumar
Tribhuandutt Pandey
Date: 2020.10.13
15:17:00 +0530
(S.T. Pandey)
Dist. Judge­4 and
Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik.