1
Cri. Bail Appln. No.557 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NASHIK,
AT – NASHIK.
(Presided over by Mr. M. H. Shaikh)
Criminal Bail Application No.557 of 2022
CNR No.MHNS010022732022
1.

Vasant Rudrappa Nagarkar
Age : 73 Years, Occu.: Business
R/o : Rudra Bungalow, Hande
Mala, Nr. Taran Talav, Nashik­Road,
Nashik.

2.

Nandkishor Vishwanath Nagarkar
Age : 57 Years, Occu.: Business
R/o : 07, Ganesh Building, Lingayat
Colony, Deolaligaon, Nashik­Road,
Nashik.

3.

Balasaheb Shankarrappa Ghodke
Age : 75 Years, Occu.: Business
R/o : Prince Apartment, Artillery
Center Road, Nashik­Road, Nashik.

4.

Badrinath Murlidhar Walekar
Age : 70 Years, Occu.: Retired
R/o : Priyanka Apartment, Near
SaiBaba Temple, Deolaligaon,
Nashik­Road, Nashik.

… Applicants.

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

2
Cri. Bail Appln. No.557 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
Appearance :
Ld. Adv. Shri. M. Y. Kale for Applicants/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.I­
115 /2022 registered with the respondent/Nashik­Road Police
Station for an offence punishable under 406, 468, 471 and 420 r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.

Perusal of the F.I.R. reflects that, applicants were 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 applicants that, they resigned from
the Directorship of the Society in the month of April­1999. However,
in audit report it is show that 05.07.1999. 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 applicants is not spelt
out in the F.I.R. except the fact that, they were the Directors of the
Society. Investigation is based on documentary evidence. All
3
Cri. Bail Appln. No.557 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
documents are seized by the Police. There is no criminal antecedence.
Applicants are old persons, suffering from illments 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.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicants and Ld. A.P.P. for
State at length. So also gone through the written arguments filed by
Ld. Advocate for applicants at Exh.10. Perused the F.I.R., Police­
papers 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
4
Cri. Bail Appln. No.557 of 2022 (Or Exh.1)
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 applicants 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
applicants 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 applicants 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 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.557 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
16:35:55 +0530
(M. H. Shaikh)
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.