AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Shinde, J.—Rule. Heard forthwith.
This application is filed for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 216/2008 registered with Chalisgaon Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B, 201, r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The said crime is registered on 19.10.2008 at Chalisgaon Police Station. This application is filed before this Court on 24nd November, 2008. The application filed for anticipatory bail of the present applicant before the Sessions Court came to be rejected on 11.11.2008. Hence, this application.
The facts as narrated in the application are as follows.
The applicant is Ex-Director of Chalisgaon Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. There is no outstanding dues towards the applicant. It is the case of the applicant that the Board of Administrator came to be appointed in the year 2006. The applicant elected as a Director from 12.1.1999 to 4.9.2006. Thereafter, as applicant was not in power, applicant is helpless to take necessary action against the delinquents.
It is further case of the applicant that the Special Auditor Co-operative Societies Class II, served notice to the applicant u/s 81(1)(3A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 dated 9.9.2008. It was alleged in the said notice that the applicant has misappropriated the amount of the Bank and cheated the Bank when applicant was elected as Director. It is alleged that the applicant has not followed the Rules and Regulations laid down by R.B.I. from time to time.
On 9.9.2008 the concerned auditor has not given the relevant documents to answer the notice, therefore, the applicant was constrained to file the writ petition. Directions were given in the writ petition to supply the documents to the applicants. However, all the documents were not made available to the applicant. It is further stated in the application that the complaint is filed by the complainant in due haste.
It is further case of the applicant that apprehending the arrest, the applicant filed criminal bail application No. 1042/2008 for anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon and same came to be rejected on 11.11.2008.
It is the case of the applicant that on 23.10.2008 the applicant submitted reply to the notice of Auditor of the Bank. It is the case of the applicant that he had deposited Rs. 2,21,666/- in the Bank in fixed deposit scheme in the name of her daughter and wife. Till today the said amount is laying in the Bank. This shows that the applicant is innocent one. It is further case of the applicant that the Sessions Judge, who rejected the bail application of the present applicant, has granted anticipatory bail and regular bail to co-accused persons in the same crime. The other companion judges also granted anticipatory bail and regular bail to other co-accused persons. The Directors who had obtained loan and the relatives of Directors who had taken loan, had been granted regular as well as anticipatory bail, but the person who had not taken any loan and even who had not given any loan to his relatives like applicant, their applications were rejected.
The application discloses various grounds on which applicant seeks anticipatory bail. The grounds are narrated in para 29 of the application.
The application is taken for final hearing. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the present applicant though Ex-Director during his period as Director, has not borrowed any loan or his relatives have not borrowed any loan from the Bank. He further submits that the Sessions Court has released Directors as well as borrowers on anticipatory bail. He also invited my attention to the contents of the application and submitted that details are given in respect of the Directors and borrowers to whom bail is granted by the Sessions Court. He further submitted that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. He further invited my attention to the fact that though relatives of some of the Directors have taken loan, they are released on anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. However, the present applicant though not borrowed any loan or by his relatives, has been refused anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. He further submits that the entire record is in the custody of the Bank. No purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bar. The applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigating machinery and he will attend the concerned police as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that even the applicant is ready to attend the police station every day. He further submits that the applicant was in minority. The decisions taken by the Members of the Board are the views of the majority Directors. According to the applicant, he along with other few Directors were in minority and therefore, whatever the resolutions have been passed, granting illegal disbursement of loan, is responsibility of those Directors who are in majority. He further submitted that the fact that the present applicant has kept amount of Rs. 2,21,666/- in fixed deposit scheme in the name of daughter and wife and said amount is laying in the bank, that itself shows that applicant is innocent person. The learned Counsel further submitted that prior to and after issuing notice dated 9.9.2008, and after filing F.I.R. dated 19.10.2008, the borrower on their own accord and on order of Court paid the dues. The recovery of dues is going on. Therefore, it cannot be prima facie case of fraud or misappropriation of funds. He further submitted that while entertaining this application all the grounds which are taken in application in para 29 may be taken in to consideration.
The learned A.P.P. assisted by the advocate for the Bank submitted that the Special Auditor Class II Co-operative, Chalisgaon, set the criminal law in motion by submitting criminal complaint in Chalisgaon Police Station, which came to be registered on 19.10.2008 as Crime No. 216/2008. The total detected fraud is of Rs. 5,51,23,000/- with interest. 11. The learned A.P.P. submitted that there are 13 F.I.R. came to be registered under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned A.P.P., the total fraud detected is of Rs. 20,78,56,325/-. The various crimes are registered i.e. Crime Nos. 216/2008, 248/2008 to 259/2008.
It is further submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the Special Auditor Class II found the illegalities, misappropriation, siphoned of money of the bank, violation of rules and regulations of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the notification issued by the R.B.I. from time to time as well as violation of exposure limit of loan and also found the bogus loan cases and disbursement of amount under the garb of loan.
According to the learned A.P.P., the arrest is part of process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There are possibilities and circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts.
The learned A.P.P. submitted following points for rejection of bail.
a. There is sufficient material to indicate that financial irregularities, dishonest and fraudulent loan transactions have been taken place in the affairs of the said bank, for which the Board of Directors and certain borrowers, who were in collusion with them are responsible.
b. According to the learned A.P.P., the present applicant was Director of the said bank from 12.1.1993 to 6.9.2006 The involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence is clearly made out.
c. According to the learned A.P.P., the ground of parity does not exist, the other persons are released on bail whose cases are of not that serious nature like present applicant. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
d. There is documentary evidence against the applicant. The overacts of applicant and others is manifest. The crime in which the applicant is involved, is very serious and involving conspiracy to cheat and defraud public institution in a systematic manner.
e. In the present crime, involving public mischief resulting into serious offences involving huge illegal finance, committed against the bank at large, in this event it may be keep in view the potential threat, which may cause huge financial set back to gullible public i.e. depositors.
f. There was designed plan, prima facie to defraud the depositors and members of the bank. The bank is put to loss of approximately 20 crore due to finical bungling, manipulations and money laundering. The applicant joined hands with other Directors, intentionally, knowingly and deliberately defrauded the bank.
g. The Chairman, members of Board of Directors, Manager in furtherance of their common intention committed breach of trust and they have involved in unlawfully disbursement of amount in crore to their relatives under the garb of loan. The said so-called loan was not refunded from the borrowers. The loan was given for the purpose of business to the close relatives of some of the Directors or Ex-Directors or Manager. In fact the business for which the loans are given were never in existence. The loan is disbursed by passing the provisions of Co-operative Law, by-laws and Rules and Regulation to their close relatives, well wishers illegally without obtaining security and mortgage or proper security from the borrowers. At the time of obtaining and sanctioning loan forged documents were prepared and on that basis the loans were granted by the Board of Directors.
h. During the course of investigation, prima-facie it appears that there is systematic fraud committed due to which the bank has caused great loss.
i. As per the master circular dated 4th July, 2007, in point No. 6.2 - the wilful default is defined and in point No. 6.3 - diversion and siphoning of funds elaborately narrated. The penal measures are also narrated in 6.6(b) and in point No. 6.9 - a criminal action is directed to be taken against the borrower by the R.B.I. In the circular in point No. 4.6.3 oral sanction is prohibited.
j. It is further submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the total number of directors till 1998 were 13, till 21.2.2004 the number of directors were 15 and thereafter, 17 directors were there. The Board of Directors was dissolved by the learned D.D.R. on 6.9.2006 as there were illegality. There was 6 committees constituted by the Board of Directors. In each committee near about 5 directors were nominated. Amongst the directors in the 6 committees, each of the Directors were given representation. All Directors were represented in two or three committees. The committees were constituted as valuation committee, supervision committee, scrutiny committee, guarantor committee, loan sub committee, godown committee. In the said committees, all the Directors were nominated. After the report of all committees the loan case has to be put up before the Board of Directors for sanctioning the loan. The Directors, who were represented in the above committees, were again sit as a Board of Directors to sanction the loan. It means each of the Director were acted in duel capacity. All these registers are seized by the I.O. It is also disclosed in the investigation that though these committees were there, in fact, they have not performed their duties. No loan officer was appointed. Managing Director was also not appointed. All the work to scrutinize, to value the property, to verify the goods etc. was with the Board of Directors.
k. It is further submitted that the earlier auditors have time and again objected and pointed out the bogus loan cases, however, the Board of Directors were in power till 6.9.2006, therefore, they have not filed any criminal case because they could have become accused and that criminal case could be filed against themselves and therefore, knowing and deliberately they avoided and ignored the audit report. The present applicant was also in supervision committee, guarantor committee, godown committee and valuation committee.
l. It is further submitted by learned A.P.P. that as per the resolution dated 13.7.2001 though again the loan sub committee, audit and inspection committee, staff sub committee, recovery sub committee were reconstituted, however, those committees were never come in existence, those committees were remain on paper only.
m. It is further submitted that one of the director by name Rajendra Choudhari filed a criminal writ petition No. 100/2009 before the Hon''ble Division Bench for interim protection in crime No. 248/08 to 256/08, 258/08 and 259/08, however, the Hon''ble Division Bench refuse to grant the interim protection and kept the matter on 2.2.2009.
n. It is further submitted that there is no possibility to recover the huge amount and therefore, there is every possibility that applicant is likely to abscond and will tamper with the prosecution evidence and witnesses and hence, bail may be rejected.
I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions. Since the present application is filed for seeking anticipatory bail, it may not be in the interest of either side to comment on the merits in detail of the matter since investigation is in progress. Therefore, I proceed to decide this application, mentioning relevant facts confined to prayer in this application.
At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the observations of the Apex Court while dealing with the applications for anticipatory bail and scope of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Section 438 of Cr.P.C. makes special provision for granting "anticipatory bail" which was introduced in the present Code of 1973. As observed in Balchand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , "anticipatory bail" means a bail in anticipation of arrest. The expression "anticipatory bail" is misnomer inasmuch as it is not as if bail presently granted in anticipation of arrest. Where a competent Court grants "anticipatory bail", it makes an order that in the event of arrest, a person shall be released on bail. There is no question of release on bail unless a person is arrested and, therefore, it is only on arrest that the order granting anticipatory bail becomes operative.
It is also observed in the said judgment that the the power of granting "anticipatory bail" is extraordinary in character and only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person is falsely implicated or a frivolous case is launched against him or "there are reasonable grounds for holding that a persons accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail", that such power may be exercised. Thus, the power is "unusual in nature" and is entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial service i.e. a Court of Sessions and a High Court.
The Apex Court in the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others Vs. State of Punjab, has made observations regarding scope of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. It is further observed in the same paragraph that since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438 , especially when not imposed by the legislature. In para 31, it is further observed that in regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice, but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the orders of anticipatory bail, he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But, the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. In fact, there are numerous considerations, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant''s presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.
In para 40 and 41 the Apex Court has further observed that a blanket order i.e. an order which serves as a blanket to cover or to protect any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity, in fact any eventuality, likely or unlikely regarding which, no concrete information can possibly be had, should not generally be passed. Such a blanket order is bound to cause serious interference with the functions of the police.
It is further observed in para 36 that if an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or the Court of Session, it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case has been made out for granting such relief. It cannot leave the question for the decision of the Magistrate concerned u/s 437 of the Code, as and when an occasion arises. It is further observed in para 27, 38 and 39 that the filing of an F.I.R. is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the power u/s 438. Anticipatory bail can be granted even after an F.I.R. is filed, so long as the applicant has not been arrested. But the provisions of Section 438 cannot be invoked after the arrest of the accused. It is further observed in para 42 that an order of bail can be passed u/s 438(1) without notice to the Public Prosecutor. But notice should issue to the Public Prosecutor or the Government Advocate forthwith and the question of bail should be re-examined in the light of the respective contentions of the parties. The ad-interim order too must conform to the requirements of the section and suitable conditions should be imposed on the applicant even at that stage.
In case of State Rep. by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, , the Supreme Court in para 6 has observed thus :- Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order u/s 438 of the Code. In case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful information and also materials which would have been cancelled. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third decree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.
The Supreme Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, has observed that if accused facing a charge under sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B is ordinarily not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code unless it is established that such criminal accusation is not a bona fide one.
In the case of Ram Narain Poply, Pramod Kumar Manocha, Vinayak Narayan Deosthali and Harshad S. Mehta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, the Supreme Court has observed thus:
The cause of the community deserves better treatment at the hands of the Court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The Community or the State is not a persona non granta whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offences is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national Economy and National Interest, as was aptly stated in State of Gujrat v. Mahanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr. AIR 1987 1321.
While considering the scope of anticipatory bail u/s 438 of Criminal Procedure Code in case of Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2005 S.C.W. 1013, relying on the earlier Constitutional Bench judgment in case of Balachand Jain v. State of Madhya Prades reported in AIR 1977 S.C. 366, the Supreme Court in para 7 has observed thus:
The power exercisable u/s 438 is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty then power is to be exercised u/s 438. The power being of important nature it is entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial forums i.e. the Court of Session or the High Court. It is the power exercisable in case of an anticipated accusation of non-bailable offence. The object which is sought to be achieved by Section 438 of the Code is that the moment a person is arrested if he has already obtained an order from the Court of Session or High Court, he shall be released immediately on bail without being sent to jail.
The Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Chandravadan Desai and Ors. v. State of Gujrat reported in 2006 Cri L.J. 136 while considering bail application of the applicants therein has observed thus:
Accused a Director of Bank and others involved in Bank Scam - Siphoned off funds of Bank worth crores by bogus loans and fictitious letters of credit in name of their friends, relatives etc. - Offence is very serious - Evidence showing their prima facie involvement in offence - Having regard to huge amounts involved there is danger of accused absconding, if released on bail, or attempting to tamper with evidence by pressurizing witnesses - Refusal of bail is proper.
This Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Pramod Sahebrao Rohankar reported in 2008 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 3476 has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the applicants therein with observations in para 12 that:
In the fact situation of the present case, there is sufficient material available to infer that the Directors joined hands with Chairman Rajendra Wani while sanctioning the loan cases on a single day, in the four lots mentioned above, which resulted into huge financial loss to the Co-operative Credit Society. Nobody made any attempt to verify whether the borrowers were eligible, whether the proper procedure was followed, whether the sufficient securities were obtained and whether such huge loans were likely to be recovered. Since some of the borrowers are not in existence at all and no security is obtained from many of them, it is obvious that recovery of the loans under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act would be difficult. The learned Additional Sessions judge failed to consider these aspects of the matter. He did not record sufficient reasons and vaguely observed that the respondents were not directly involved in the financial misdeeds. Needless to say, the impugned orders are illegal, perverse and liable to be quashed.
In the light of above cited judgments and observations made therein by the Apex Court and this Court, I proceed to decide the present application for anticipatory bail.
The Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibba cited Supra has observed that," the larger interests of the public or the State" should be one of the consideration while granting bail. The case in hand requires to be considered from the said angle.
The present applicant was the Director of the Bank for the period from 12.1.1993 to 22.2.2006. During the period in which the present applicant was Director, he attended several meetings and in the said meetings resolutions were passed to grant loans to various persons. According to the complainant, as disclosed in the said resolutions, taking decision to grant loan to various persons was in contravention with Bank Regulation, R.B.I. Regulation, By-laws of the concerned Bank, the provisions of Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act and other relevant regulations issued from time to time by the Government.
In the instant case, though the applicant or his relatives have not taken loan, however, the loan is sanctioned to 14 borrowers during the period in which the present applicant was Director. The following persons are the borrowers who have taken the loan during the period in which the present applicant was Director. They are Swar Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Rajendra Sidhappa Gavali, Uma Agencies, Avinash Dhondu Shirode, Rajendra Sidhappa Gavali, Babi Tukaram Gavali, Vaishali Pramod Gavali, Sidhappa Yamaji Gavali, Badrinarayan Balmukund Somani, Hotel Kanishkh - Alaka Swar, Balasaheb Ukha Choudhari, Nandkishor Ukha Choudhari, Dyaneshwar Ukha Choudhari.
It is pertinent to mention that loan proposals are sanctioned either to the relatives of the Directors or to other borrowers. The loans are sanctioned without security or mortgage. There is violation of prescribed limit of granting loan and loan proposals are sanctioned beyond the prescribed limit. The loans are sanctioned for business purpose, however, there is no proof in the file or record of the bank that the borrowers who have borrowed the loan for business, are carrying same business. The loan amount is either used for the benefit of the Directors or relatives or the borrowers. There is violation of by-laws of the Society and loan proposals are sanctioned in utter disregard of the by-laws of the Society. The applicant had attended number of meetings in which decisions were taken to grant the loan contrary to the by-laws of the Bank, R.B.I. guidelines and Rules and Regulations.
Though the applicant has not borrowed the loan for himself or for his relatives, still the applicant cannot escape from his responsibility/liability for huge loss sustained to the bank due to non payment of loan amounts by the borrowers. The present applicant has not opposed any of the bogus loan cases during the meetings in which he attended and signed the proceedings. The other two Directors namely Durgaprasad Kaluram Daima and one other Director have consistently opposed sanctioning of loan proposals contrary to the by-laws of the Bank or guidelines of the R.B.I. The present applicant should have opposed such proposals during the meetings, if he was really innocent. Not only that the applicant has attended the number of meetings and signed the proceedings of the meetings. The argument of the learned A.P.P. that the present applicant is vicariously liable for all the bogus loans, sanctioned during his period, has considerable substance and said the contention cannot be rejected at outright. If the arguments of the learned A.P.P. are carefully perused, various instances have been cited by the A.P.P. to show that how the loans are advanced illegally to the persons contrary to the Rules and Regulations of R.B.I., provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Rules thereunder and relevant directions issued by the Government from time to time.
It would not be out of place to refer the arguments of the learned A.P.P. that the larger amount of the bank have been systematically syphoned of, there is misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 27 crores. The Bank is put to loss by hatching systematic plan/conspiracy by the Directors and borrowers and as a result, the thousands of depositors who have put more than 37 crores in the Bank, are not getting their deposits back due to non recovery of amount of Rs. 27 crores loan disbursed by the Bank.
The present applicant had attended number of meetings and signed the proceedings on those days on which loan proposals of as many as 14 persons have been sanctioned. Nothing prevented the present applicant from opposing the said resolutions which were being passed contrary to the by-laws of the Bank. After all unless the Director Board approves the proposals in their meeting, no further steps can be taken by the Bank. The main decision of sanctioning the loan proposals is by way of resolutions by the Director Board in their meetings. Merely because the applicant has not borrowed the loan himself or his relatives, prima facie, it cannot be concluded that he is not responsible for the illegal disbursement of the loan amount contrary to the policy of the Bank. The total amount outstanding towards the borrowers is more than Rs. 27 crores. Thousands of depositors have deposited their hard earned money in the bank. The deposits, according to the figures given by the learned A.P.P., is more than 37 crores rupees and bank is not able to return the amount of depositors due to the fact that more than 27 crores loan amount to be recovered from the Directors, their relatives and other borrowers.
Since the application is only for the anticipatory bail though various contentions are raised by the applicant and the learned A.P.P. , it would not be appropriate to comment in detail about the merits of the case since the investigation is in progress. Suffice it to say that if the contents of the F.I.R. are perused carefully, prima facie conclusion can be drawn that there was systematic plan hatched by the Directors to grant loan amounts illegally to various borrowers who are either relatives of the Directors or the Directors have some interest shared with them, causing heavy loss to the Bank and depositors of the Bank.
The contents of the complaint are not only limited to the fact that whether the Director himself or his relatives have taken loan, but the allegations refers to the disbursement of huge amount towards loan contrary to the by-laws of the bank, guidelines of the R.B.I. and other relative provisions of Maharshtra State Co-operative Societies Act and Rules thereunder. Prima facie it can be said that Directors Board was responsible for sanctioning the loan proposals contrary to the policy of the bank and they cannot escape from their responsibility merely on the ground that the particular director or his relatives have not taken loan. The persons who were Directors during the period in which loan proposals are sanctioned in the meetings contrary to the policy of the bank are collectively responsible and no Director can escape from the responsibility, unless he or she demonstrates that the loan proposals were opposed by them in the meetings and they protested against the sanction of the loan proposals contrary to the policy of the Bank.
The applicant though claims that he was in minority group, nothing has been placed on record to show that the majority Directors have taken decision and the present applicant was in minority. The present applicant participated in meetings and signed the proceedings and did not protest against the decisions taken by the Directors Board granting huge amount of loan to various borrowers, some of the Directors and their relatives.
The applicant is a signatory to the various resolutions passed from time to time during the period in which he was Director. It can not be forgotten that thousands of depositors have deposited more than Rs.37 crore in the said Bank and total loan on the date of filing the complaint was to be recovered from the borrowers to the extent of around Rs. 28 Crores. If the contents of the complaint and other documents which are made available, are perused carefully, same would demonstrate that loans have been sanctioned by the Board in utter disregard to the by-laws of the Bank, inasmuch as the loans have been granted. The loans have been sanctioned in excess of permissible limit under the by-laws. It can also be seen that the loans have been sanctioned without obtaining requisite security. It could also be seen from the record that loans have been sanctioned to close relatives of the some of the Directors including present applicant. It could be seen that there is prima facie evidence of involvement of the present applicant in granting loans in huge amounts to various persons including some Directors and relatives of some Directors. Though the applicant or his relatives have not borrowed the loan, he could not escape from his liability as a signatory of the various loan proposals during his period when he was Director and therefore, the applicant does not deserve the leniency.
In my considered view, if the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court referred hereinabove are considered in the light of fact and situation of this case, the application for anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected.
In the present case, thousands of depositors are deprived from their hard earned money since the bank is not able to repay there deposits to them. The bank has been duped by the Directors, their relatives and borrowers without having any regard to the security of the bank or interest of the bank. The applicant was Director for considerable period. In case protection is granted to the applicant, there may be possibility that he may try to influence the prosecution witnesses.
Though the learned counsel for the applicant''s argument that some of the Directors and borrowers have been released on bail and therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail on the ground of parity, deserves to be rejected. While granting bail each case may be considered on its own facts. The other two Directors to whom bail is granted by this Court, their case stands on different footings. In those cases the learned Counsel appearing for them has demonstrated on the basis of the documents produced on record that they consistently opposed the resolutions in which decisions were taken to grant loan contrary to policy of the Bank. The present applicant has not opposed any loan proposal during the meeting in which he was present and signed the proceedings.
For all these reasons stated hereinabove, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. Rule is discharged.
It is made clear that observations made here in above are restricted only for the purpose of deciding the present application.