This bench considered an application under section 482 CrPC challenging an order granting anticipatory bail to bank officials accused of related offences. The court held no case for interference was made out.
Application to quash the order granting anticipatory bail is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.623 OF 2008
Shri Ashok Gangwani.. Applicant
Vs.
Mr.Michael Poshan Furtado & Ors... Respondents
Mr.A.P.Mundargi with Mr.Ganesh Gole for the Applicant.
Mr.Prakash Naik i/by Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal for Respondent
Nos.1 to 4.
Mrs.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the State.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.
DATE : 04th August 2008.
P.C.:
.Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the
applicant. The applicant is the original complainant
who filed a private complaint against the 1st to 4th
respondents who are respectively the Chairman, General
Manager, Assistant General Manager and Recovery Manager
of a Co-operative bank. The applicant had obtained a
cash credit facility from the said bank. The case of
the applicant is that the other co-accused in the
complaint dispossessed him from a shop premises. The
case of the applicant is that he intimated the bank
about dispossession and requested the bank to take
possession of hypothecated stocks lying in the shop. It
is stated that though officers of bank including the 4th
respondent went to the shop for seizing the stock, they
: 2 :
failed to do so after talking to the other accused
persons Shri Yogita Jaiswal and Shri T.R. Sharma. It
is alleged that instead of taking over possession of the
hypothecated stock, the 1st to 4th respondents accepted
fixed deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- from the said two
accused. In the complaint the applicant alleged
commission of offences under section 384, 403, 406, 409,
420, 467, 468, 447, 506 read section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The learned Magistrate passed an order
under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The 1st to 4th respondents herein applied for
grant of anticipatory bail. By order dated 07th
February 2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
granted anticipatory bail in favour of the said accused.
By filing this application under section 482 of the said
Code the applicant has challenged the said order dated
17th February 2008 granting anticipatory bail.
2.The learned senior counsel appearing for the
applicant submitted that looking to the serious
allegations made against the concerned respondents this
was not a case for grant of anticipatory bail as
custodial interrogation of the said accused persons was
required. He invited my attention to the letters dated
30th June 2007 and 04th September 2007 which are annexed
: 3 :
to this application. He submitted that though it was
repeatedly brought to the notice of the concerned
respondents that the applicant was dispossessed and the
hypothecated goods were lying in the shop premises, no
action was taken by the officers of the bank. He,
therefore, submitted that the order granting
anticipatory bail be quashed and set aside.
3.I have considered the submissions. As stated
earlier, the applicant is the borrower of a co-operative
bank who was admittedly granted cash credit facility to
the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- by the said bank. The 1st
to 4th respondents are the Chairman, the General
Manager, Assistant General Manager and Recovery Manager
respectively of the said bank. While granting
anticipatory bail, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
observed that even according to the case of the
prosecution, the said officers did not play any active
role in alleged dispossession of the applicant and the
said officers are not parties to the alleged fabrication
of the documents. Considering these facts, anticipatory
bail was granted in favour of the said respondents by
imposing usual conditions regarding attendance at the
concerned police station on three days. The learned
Sessions Judge observed that the prosecution could not
: 4 :
make out a case that the custodial interrogation of the
1st to 4th respondents is required. The Investigating
Officer has not alleged that the concerned accused have
not co-operated in terms of conditions incorporated in
the order granting anticipatory bail. No case for
interference is made out. Application is rejected.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal application under section 482 of CrPC should be allowed to quash the order granting anticipatory bail to bank officials.
Whether custodial interrogation of the accused officials was required given the allocation of responsibilities between borrowers and bank officers.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Ashok Gangwani
Mr. Michael Poshan Furtado & Ors.
A.S.Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court