Allowed

Deochand Parshuram Shetye v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Aug 2011ABA/533/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed anticipatory bail for a bank branch manager accused of corruptionsanctioning fraudulent loans. It held that mere obedience to board directives does not prima facie establish conspiracy, granting him bail conditions. Other applications were disposed of as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory Bail Application No.534 of 2011 is allowed. Applicant released on P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with sureties, available for interrogation, and to produce documents.

Deochand Parshuram Shetye Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2011)

533.534.585

rng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.533 OF 2011

¶5

Mr.Deochand Parshuram Shetye .. Applicant
 vs
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
with ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.534/2011
Mr Ratilal Pitambar Bhole .. Applicant
vs
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.582/2011

¶6

Mr.Rajendra Paramanand Shetye .. Applicant
 vs
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.583/2011
Mr.Umesh Manohar Chamankar .. Applicant
 vs
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
withCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 584/2011

¶7

Mr.Santosh Prabhakar Bidoo .. Applicant

¶8

vs

¶9

¶10

533.534.585

¶11

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶12

Mr.R.D.Soni with Mr.V.S.Kasle i.b.Ms.Kamla Bhatt
for Applicant

¶13

Ms.S.V.Sonawane APP for State

¶14

Anticipatory Bail Application No.585/2011
Not on board but taken on board alongwith
connected matters

¶15

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J DATE: 24th August 2011

¶16

P.C.

¶17

1. All these Applications were filed for

¶18

seeking anticipatory bail in crime No.20 of 2011
registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai
for the offences punishable under sections 13
(1)d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption
Act, 1988 and under sections 465, 467, 468,
471,420,read section 120(b)and 109 of the Indian
penal code.

¶19

2.The prosecution case in brief is that out
of these Applicants,Applicant Devendra Shetye
was the Chief executive officer and Applicant-

¶20

Ratilal Bhole was the Branch Manager of Bhandari

¶21

¶22

533.534.585

¶23

Cooperative Bank Ltd. The Applicant Sandesh

¶24

Nagvekar was the Chairman and other three
Applicants namely Umesh Chamankar, Rajendra
Shetye and Santosh Bidoo were the Directors of
the said bank. They had sanctioned housing
loans in favour of 69 employees of B.E.S.T. for
purchase of flats in two buildings to be
constructed by the two builders, namely Laxman
Divekar and Sudhakar Mhatre. Inspite of the
legal opinion of Advocate Prakash Shenoy raising
question in respect of certain documents
including non-registration of documents of land
in favour of the said builders. The objection
by Ratilal Bhole about salary and repaying
capacity of the employees loans were sanctioned.
Not only the loans were sanctioned but, the
amounts were immediately transferred to the
accounts of those Builders directly. The total

¶25

amount involved in these two loans was to the

¶26

tune of Rs.6,25,53,000/-. Later on it was
revealed that the said builders had produced
bogus documents about the lands on which they

¶27

¶28

533.534.585

¶29

had proposed to make development and also that
they had not at all made any construction. They
had shown some buildings under construction but,
they were totally different and not for the
employees of the B.E.S.T. Therefore, these
offences came to be registered.

¶30

3.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
After perusal of the record and the material
available with the prosecution, Mr.R.D.Soni
learned counsel for the Applicants makes a
statement that Deochand Shetye, Chief Executive
Officer,Umesh Chamankar and Santosh Bidoo, who
were two of the Director, have been already
arrested. The Applicant-Rajendra Shetye and
Sandesh Nagvekar were the Directors and Chairman
respectively when these loans were sanctioned
overruling all the objections. Therefore, the
learned counsel does not want to press the
Applications for anticipatory bail for these
five Applicants.

¶31

¶32

533.534.585

¶33

4.On perusal of the record and particularly
the minutes of the meeting dated 1.1.2011, in
which the discussions had taken place about
these loans and they were approved, I find that
Applicant-Ratilal Pitambar Bhole who was the
Branch Manager had raised objections about the
sanction of the loan. In fact, the Chief
Executive Officer Devendra Shetye had also
raised serious objections about the documents
which were produced by the said builders but,
Umesh Chamankar, had played very active role in
bulldozing the loan proposals and he convinced
the Chairman and other Directors in sanctioning
the loans inspite of the objections pointed
out even in the legal opinion of Advocate
Prakash Shenoy.

¶34

5.The learned APP contended that Ratilal

¶35

Bhole was the Branch Manager and had actually
disbursed loan and therefore he is equally
guilty. At this stage, it cannot be decided
whether he is guilty or not but the fact remains

¶36

¶37

533.534.585

¶38

that he was an employee of the bank and was
posted as Branch Manager. He was not one of the
members of the committee which could sanction
loan. The loan was sanctioned by the Board of
Directors and as an employee of the bank, he
was bound to obey the directions. Merely
because he obeyed the directions given by the
Board of Directors, who had sanctioned the
loans, prima facie, it cannot be inferred that
he was part of the conspiracy. At least the
circumstances are such that anticipatory bail
cannot be refused to him.

¶39

5. For the aforesaid reasons, Anticipatory Bail
Application No.534 of 2011 is hereby allowed and
in case of arrest in Crime No.20 of 2011, the
Applicant Ratilal Pitambar Bhole shall be
released on his executing P.R.bond in the sum of
of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the
like amount with the condition that shall make
himself available to the police as and when
required for the purpose of interrogation and

¶40

533.534.585

¶41

¶42

investigation and he shall make available all
the relevant documents and material which may be
required for the investigating agency and shall
not misuse the bail.

¶43

Remaining Applications stand disposed of as
not pressed.

¶44

J.H.BHATIA, J

Deochand Parshuram Shetye v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deochand Parshuram Shetye 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

M/S. Jagannath Parmeshwar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Waman Lukha Jadhav and Ors.

1. Shri. Narendra Shriniwas Mundada and Ors. Vs 1. Mrs. Subhadra @ Dnyaneshwar Kamthe and Ors.

Madan Chavakula Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tukaram Trimbak Pimputkar Vs M/S. Asha Associates and Anr.

M/S. Suchetan Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Vithalrao Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra