Allowed

Manini Ramesh Mandavgane v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Mar 2011APPLN/1016/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad granted anticipatory bail to a retired society director. The court observed she had no criminal intention despite illegal loan disbursements and made the interim protection order absolute with strict attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

The interim protection granted earlier was made absolute. The applicant must attend the investigator on the last Sunday of the month between 2.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. and whenever specifically informed.

Manini Ramesh Mandavgane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Application No.1016/2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1016 OF 2011

¶5

Smt. Manini w/o Ramesh Mandavgane ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS

¶6

Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate for the applicant Shri N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents

¶7

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.

¶8

DATE : 30th March, 2011

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

Heard. In Crime No.14/2011, registered at Varangaon Police Station, exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code are urged.

¶11

The female applicant, basically a teacher, was appointed as a Director to Dhanwardhini Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Warangaon, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon (for short the Patsanstha). She allegedly did not contest any of the elections of the Society. She was nominated all

¶12

¶13

Criminal Application No.1016/2011

¶14

throughout. She has shifted to Pune and enjoying retired life. She did not take part in the activities of the Patsanstha except attending few meetings. She has not received any loan nor has recommended any proposal of loan. It is informed, not a single relative of the applicant has directly/ indirectly availed facility or financial benefit from the Patsanstha.

¶15

Learned A.P.P. submits that in almost all the meetings where 50 illegal loans were disbursed, the applicant was present as a Director. He accepts that the applicant did not propose or nominate or activate any loan to any of the borrower.

¶16

In a Writ Petition filed by the applicant, being Writ Petition No.8999/2010, a specific averment was made that even if her signatures are seen on resolution, however, such signatures were taken after such resolutions, whenever she used to visit Varangaon to attend her pension account. She has received all her communication to Pune. Even the notice in question of the Patsanstha was served upon her at Pune.

¶17

The illegal disbursement of advances to several

¶18

persons in the Patsanstha mounted a figure of arrears to Rs.2.50

¶19

¶20

Criminal Application No.1016/2011

¶21

Crores approximately. The depositors feel that they are duped and their hard-earned money is left to winds. Even accepting the above position, the above factual prima facie details illustrate that the accused/ applicant is not to be personally held responsible for the mistakes that have been committed in the affairs. No criminal intention on the part of the applicant is surfaced while transacting in the Patsanstha. Considering these aspects, custodial interrogation not required for gearing up the investigation Hence order :

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The earlier interim protection granted on 11.3.2011 is made absolute. The accused/ applicant shall attend the investigator on last Sunday of the month between 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and shall also cause her attendance whenever specifically so informed by the investigator. Application allowed.

¶24

K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE

¶25

fmp/cri1016.11

Manini Ramesh Mandavgane v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manini Ramesh Mandavgane v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Mohammad Fiyaz Ali Amjat Ali and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant Naryan Wankhede Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kiran Ananda Bavaskar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atmaram Bhagwat Gitte and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh @ Dadu Manvel Mirpagar Vs the State of Mah

Dilip Eknath Bodode and Ors. Vs the State of Mah