Allowed

Rajkumar Tukaram Ubale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Dec 2009APPLN/2697/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants who were former directors of a credit society. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as applicants denied giving loans to relatives during their directorship and had offered an undertaking to repay looses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; Applicants to be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- each with sureties.

Rajkumar Tukaram Ubale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2697 OF 2009

¶5

Rajkumar Tukaram Ubale
Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

....Applicant

¶8

....Respondent

¶9

WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2698 OF 2009

¶11

Vijaykumar C. Bagal...Applicant
Vs.

¶12

The State of Maharashtra

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

WITH

¶15

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2699 OF 2009

¶16

Adinath R. More...Applicant
Vs.

¶17

The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶18

WITH

¶19

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2700 OF 2009

¶20

Shivaji Mahadeo Bhosale and Ors....Applicants
Vs.

¶21

The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶22

Shri Sandeep S. Salunkhe for Applicant
Mrs. P.P. Shinde- APP for State

¶23

¶24

WITH

¶25

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2683 OF 2009

¶26

Sandipan L. Bagal...Applicant
Vs.

¶27

The State of Maharashtra

¶28

...Respondent

¶29

Shri Shekhar A. Ingawale for Applicant
Mrs. P.P. Shinde- APP for State

¶30

CORAM: V.M. KANADE J.
DATED: 3RD DECEMBER, 2009

¶31

P.C.

¶32

1.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Applicants and the learned APP for the State.

¶33

2.The Applicants are the directors of the credit
society. The auditor, who audited the account of the
said credit society has given a report in which he has
stated that the persons who deposited the amount in
this credit society for a fixed period, were not
repaid the said amount on the maturity of the said
fixed deposit. He has stated that the loans have

¶34

been given by the directors of the credit society
without following the guidelines and the bye-laws of
the credit societies and, as a result, the society was
not in a position to recover the said amount which was
given as a loan to the friends and relatives of the
certain directors.

¶35

¶36

3.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Applicants submitted that so far as present
Applicants, are concerned, no loans were given to any
of their relatives. He further submitted that almost
90% of the loans were disbursed during the period from
2000 to 2005 and during this period they were not the
directors of the said credit society. He,
therefore, submitted that they were not responsible
for disbursement of the said loans which have not
been recovered by the bank at the time when the
complaint was filed. The learned Counsel for the
Applicants further submitted that the Applicants have
given an undertaking to this Court that in the event
the amount which have been disbursed by the erstwhile
directors is not recovered, the fixed deposit of the
Applicants may be seized by the bank. It is further
submitted that now auditor has given a further
statement, in which he has stated that an amount of
Rs.26,00,000/- has already been recovered by the bank.

¶37

4.In view of the aforesaid position, in my view,

¶38

the custodial interrogation of the Applicants is not
necessary, particularly, because the Applicants had
not given loans to any of their friends and relatives
and that during the period when the loans which have
been disbursed, they were not the directors of the
said credit society. Undertaking given by the

¶39

¶40

Applicants in their affidavits is accepted. The credit
society, therefore, is secured. Many of the directors
who had given loans to their relatives, have been
released on bail by the Sessions Court. The
Applicants, under these circumstances, are entitled
for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶41

5.The Applicants, in the event of their arrest in
connection with C.R. Nos.85 of 2009 registered with
Kurduwadi Police Station for the offence punishable
under sections 420, 406 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- each
with one or two sureties each in the like amount.
They shall report to the concerned police station as
and when called.

¶42

6. Applications are disposed of.

¶43

(V.M. KANADE J.)

Rajkumar Tukaram Ubale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Tukaram Ubale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurudatta Shripatrao Mhangore and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh @ John @ Mama Denial Sandewal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mustafa Tajuddin Fakir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Zima Kokare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ankush S/O Shamrao Rathod and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balwant Dattoba Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.