9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the scrutiny by the Staff members of the said Bank when the Applicant was the Chairman of the Bank, clearly shows that there is substance in the apprehension that the witnesses can be influenced. It is also required to be noted that when the RBI had issued the direction that only maximum amount of Rs.1,000/- be allowed to be withdrawn by the Depositors, the Applicant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.2 Crores. The same clearly shows that the Applicant is very influential, he has no regards for the law and he can go to any extent. Although the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail due to the violation of his fundamental right to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, however, stringent conditions are required to be imposed on the Applicant. In this behalf, it is also required to be noted that the Applicant is a former Member of the Legislative Council for two terms and he is very influential person. The Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay [2018 (10) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT] has issued various directions in said decision in Paragraph No.21 for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MP or MLA. The Supreme Court in the said dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Respondent - State of Maharashtra has also filed Affidavits dated 24th July 2024 and 30th July 2024 4. The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph Nos.6 to 15 of the said Affidavit dated 20th April 2023 of Mr. Anand Ganpatrao Ruikar, Assistant Police Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Pune City, Pune. Said Paragraph Nos.6 to 15 read as follows:- "6. The brief fact of the case is as under: That the Complainant Yogesh Rajgopal Lakade is the C.A. appointed as Statutory Auditor of Shivajirao Bhosale Co-Op. Bank, Pune. In between 26.04.2019 to 14.10.2019 the complainant, Auditor and Scrutiny Team of Reserve Bank of India had verified the available cash amount and entries to the cash book. There was deficit cash in hand of amount of Rs. 71,78,87,723/-. Accordingly on the basis of specific audit report the District Special Auditor had directed the complainant to Lodge complaint in the police station. Accordingly, the complainant lodged complaint against the Bank Officers and Directors of the said bank. 7. I say that during the course of investigation, the forensic audit was conducted in which it reveals various transactions on the LP. address of Shivajirao Bhosale Sahakari Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. I say that the present Applicant/Accused has past criminal antecedents, a list of which is as under :- Sr.No. Police Station and C.R. No. U/secs. 1 Deccan Police Stn. CR No.3229/2001 37(3) r/w. Sec.131 of Bombay Police Act 2 Vishrambag Police Stn. CR No.205/1997 341,147,332,353,337of IPC 3 Shivaji Nagar Police Stn.CR No.26/2020 406,408,409,420,468, 471,109,120-B,465, 467,474,34 of IPC r/w secs.3,4 and 5 of M.P.I.D. Act. (Present Offence) 14. I say that during the course of investigation, it is revealed that the there was misappropriation of total amount Of Rs.496,46,19,130/- out of the amount of depositors. There were illegal loan transactions of amount Rs. 392,92,86,232/- the said loans were passed / sanctioned by the said bank by violating the rules and regulations of the said bank. Those loans were turned to be Non Performing Assets (NPA). 15. I say that during the course of investigation it is revealed that the present Applicant / Accused along with other co-accused have induced depositors/ account holder of the said bank, and thereby cheated them for huge amount of Rs.156,66,50,901/- for his pecuniary gain. The said amount is reflected as per bank record." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 10th June 2024 is at Paragraph Nos.6 to 9, which reads as under: "6. I say that in the aforesaid matter, the compilation was filed by the Applicant/Accused in support of his claim mentioned in Point No.1 under the title as Amount Receivable which is as under:- Liability attributable towards Mr. Anil Bhosale Embezzlement of Short Cash - 103 Crores Amount attributable to Mr. Anil 34.16 Crores Bhosale 96 NPA Account - 247 Crores 44 NPA Accounts attributable to Mr. Anil Bhosale 113.14 Crores Total attributable 146.63 Crores Explanation - As per the above mentioned chart, out of the embezzled Short Cash amount of Rs.103 Cr, Applicant had used a total amount of Rs.34.16 Cr, which is not disputed. I state that as per the applicant, the NPA Loan of applicant shown in above chart is 113.14 Cr. However it is submitted that Rs.113.14 Cr is the Principal amount and the total amount with interest is Rs. 156,66,50,901/-. 7. I say that in the aforesaid matter, the compilation was filed by the Applicant/Accused in support of his claim mentioned in Point No.2 under the title as amount receivable which is as under:Actual Recovery against liability attributable 1 Amount re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Co-operative, Pune for OTS. If the proposed OTS is approved by the concerned authority and the petitioner / accused undertakes to clear the OTS installments as approved it takes care of the 13 NPA accounts out of the 44 NPA accounts. 8.2 In respect of the valuation of properties attached by ED/EOW/Bank, mentioned as Rs.14.05 Cr, it is submitted that as per valuation by the Sub Registrar Office, Pune, the amount is Rs.11.43 Crores (Approx.) as on 2020. Fresh valuation is being obtained from the concerned department. 8.3 I say that, applicant has shown receivable amount of 41 Cr against 31 NPA loan accounts mortgaged properties. The mortgaged properties of 31 NPA loan accounts are owned by the respective loan holders. One loan account holder has closed his loan account. The valuation of mortgaged properties of remaining 30 NPA loan accounts are 27.14 Cr. as per IGR report. As per the statement received from the Loan A/C holders the 30 NPA Loan Account Holders are not willing to go in for OTS as on date and since the property is in the name of loan account holders, it will not be proper to expect this is a receivable amount in favour of the petitioner. 9. I say that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 and 10th June 2022. On the basis of the statement made in Paragraph No.5 of said Affidavit dated 20th April 2023 of Mr. Anand Ganpatrao Ruikar, Assistant Police Inspector, Economic Offences Wing, Pune City, Pune, he submitted that the investigation of the offence in question is still going on. The said Paragraph No.5 of the Affidavit dated 20th April 2023 reads as under: "5. I say that after completion of the investigation, there are four supplementary chargesheet came to be filed before the MPID Court, Pune City, Pune against the present Applicant / Accused, the scope of investigation is very wide and is very complicated. The investigation of the present crime is going on 173(8) of Cr.P.C." 8. Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail as he is incarcerated since 25th February 2020 i.e. for about more than 4 years and 6 months. He submitted that as per the prosecution case, there are a total of 256 witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution. Accordingly, the trial will take a considerably long time to conclude. 9. Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the following decisions of the Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected the Complainant to lodge complaint in the Police Station and in view of thereof the complaint was lodged. She submitted that the offence in question is very serious in nature and hence the Bail Application be rejected. 12. On the basis of further Affidavits dated 24th July 2024 and 30th July 2024, Ms. Shinde, learned APP submitted that effective steps will be taken to conclude the trial expeditiously. On the basis of the Affidavit dated 30th July 2024, she submitted that the Respondent - State of Maharashtra will take effective steps to conclude the trial within a period of 1 year. 13. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the Intervenor i.e. Complainant/Depositors, submitted that although some other Accused have been granted bail, the present Applicant is the Kingpin of fraud of amount of Rs.392.92 Crores. He submitted that the Applicant has direct role in sanctioning of 96 Loans amounting to Rs.156.66 Crores. The Applicant is involved in siphoning of public money deposited by Depositors. The Applicant is responsible for 97% NPA. The Applicant is responsible for short cash of Rs.25.58 Crores. The Applicant is involved in a serious crime of siphoning of public money, misappropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the roles of the Applicant and those who have been enlarged on bail are different. He therefore submitted that the Bail Application be rejected. 14. Perusal of the record shows that the offence was registered on 8th January 2020. During the period of 26th April 2019 to 14th October 2019 the Statutory Auditor of the said Bank - Yogesh Rajgopal Lakade i.e. Complainant and Scrutiny Team of the RBI had verified the available cash amount and entries to the cash book. There was deficit cash in hand of amount of Rs.71,78,87,723/-. Accordingly, on the basis of the Specific Audit Report, the District Special Auditor had directed the Complainant to lodge complaint in the Police Station. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the financial condition of the aforesaid Bank as on 31st March 2020 is as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amt. (In Rs.) 1 Total Deposits 432, 85, 82, 488/- 2 Total Number of Investors 93,128 3 Total Loan 401,31,00,506/- 4 Total Loanholders 719 5 N.P.A. Amt. 392,92,86,232/- 6 Total Accounts of N.P.A. 432 7 N.P.A. Percentage 97% 15. It is the prosecution case that 44 NPA Accounts are attributed to the Applicant - Anil Shivajirao Bhosa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 381;बंध लादले व त्यामुळे सुमारे १ लाख खातेदारांचे सुमारे ४३० कोटी अडकले आहेत या सर्व रकमेची माझ्या कार्यकालात झाल्याची जबाबदारी व्यक्तिगत माझी असून दि. ३१ ऑक्टो ते ७ नोव्हें २०१९ या दरम्यान मी बाहेरील व्यक ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the documents annexed to the Charge-sheets shows that the prima facie efforts were made by the Staff of the Head Office of the said Bank to create hindrance in the Scrutiny being executed by the Scrutiny Team deputed by the RBI. It is submitted that even at the time of Scrutiny, the concerned Staff of the Head Office of the said Bank refrained from producing cash, and created hindrance in the Scrutiny Team deputed by the RBI. It is submitted that even during the investigation also the Staff of the said Bank as well as the persons associated with the Applicant had tried to hamper their investigation. It is submitted that the Applicant had used deposits of Depositors as his personal property. It is submitted that on 6th May 2019, the RBI had imposed restriction upon the said Bank and due to the said restriction, the Depositors were provided restricted access to the extent of an upper limit of Rs.1000/- per month. During that time also the Applicant had fraudulently withdrawn the amount of Rs.2 Crores. Therefore, it is submitted that the Applicant be directed to deposit the entire amount of Rs.430 Crores. The relevant Paragraphs in the Intervention Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot carry on scrutiny and thus crime should not be detected. Thus, no case is made our for grant of bail on merits. 18. The Supreme Court in the decision of Manish Sisodia (supra) considered the fundamental right of an Accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and reiterated the position in the earlier decisions. The relevant Paragraphs are Paragraph Nos.51 and 52, which read as under: "51. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider an application for bail in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 wherein the accused was prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Court surveyed the entire law right from the judgment of this Court in the cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1977 INSC 232, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 INSC 68 , Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1979 INSC 34, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 : 2021 INSC 50and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State. 57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant." (Emphasis added) 19. Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari (supra) and more particularly on Paragraph No.32 of the said decision. The said Paragraph No.32 reads as under: "32. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of speedy trial of the Applicant, I am not considering the said aspect in great detail. 24. Insofar as an apprehension expressed by Ms. Shinde, learned APP and by Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the Intervenor that there is a possibility of tampering the evidence, the case largely depends on the documentary evidence. However, the Applicant is a very influential person and he was a Member of the Legislative Council for two terms and his wife is a Corporator of the Pune Municipal Corporation. The manner in which the offence has been committed as well as the conduct of the Applicant, and the Scrutiny Team of RBI was prevented from carrying out the scrutiny by the Staff members of the said Bank when the Applicant was the Chairman of the Bank, clearly shows that there is substance in the apprehension that the witnesses can be influenced. It is also required to be noted that when the RBI had issued the direction that only maximum amount of Rs.1,000/- be allowed to be withdrawn by the Depositors, the Applicant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.2 Crores. The same clearly shows that the Applicant is very influential, he has no regards for the law and he can go to any extent. 25. As observed h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 4th December 2018 where it is directed that criminal cases punishable with death/life against sitting and former MPs/MLAs should be taken up on a priority basis. In the present case, the offence is also under Section 409 of the IPC which is punishable with life imprisonment. 27. Insofar as the contention raised on behalf of the Intervenors/Depositors that the Applicant be directed to deposit Rs.430 Crores, it is required to be noted the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (2023) 7 SCC 461. The relevant Paragraph are Paragraph Nos.25 and 26 of the said decision, which read as under: "25. Law regarding exercise of discretion while granting a prayer for bail under Section 438 CrPC having been authoritatively laid down by this Court, we cannot but disapprove the imposition of a condition of the nature under challenge. Assuming that there is substance in the allegation of the complainants that the appellant (either in connivance with the builder or even in the absence of any such connivance) has cheated the complainants, the investigation is yet to result in a charge-sheet being filed under Section 173(2)CrPC, not to speak of the alleged offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said decision, the Supreme Court considered, the voluntary statement made by the Applicant. Therefore, no such condition can be imposed. 29. Mr. Mundargi, learned Counsel for the Applicant, after taking instructions, states that as most of the witnesses are from District - Pune, the Applicant will therefore not reside within District - Pune and that the Applicant will reside at Sukhada Building, Sir Pochkhanawala Road, Worli, Mumbai and he will report to the Worli Police Station, Mumbai. 30. Accordingly, the Applicant can be enlarged on bail by imposing conditions. 31. In view thereof, the following order: ORDER (a) The Applicant - Anil Shivajirao Bhosale be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.26 of 2020 registered with the Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District - Pune on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.10,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount. (b) The Applicant shall not enter the Pune district after being released on bail, except for reporting to the Investigating Officer, if called, and for attending the trial. (c) On being released on bail, the Applicant shall furnish his cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
