Allowed

Prabhakar Kanhu Lalge v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Jan 2014APPLN/20/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court at Aurangabad granted bail to the applicant, one of the accused directors of a Credit Society. The court observed that no evidence established his active role in the alleged cheating or misappropriation, noting he was merely named due to his directorship.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one solvent surety in like amount.

Prabhakar Kanhu Lalge Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 appln20-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2014

¶5

Prabhakar Kanhu Lalge ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶6

Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate h/for Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde, for the applicant Mrs. V. A. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr. S. T. Shelke h/for Mr. A. G. Ambetkar, for the Intervenor.

¶7

CORAM : M. L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATE : 23^rd January, 2014

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

Heard learned senior counsel Mr. R. N. Dhorde for the applicant, learned Assistant P. P. Mrs. V. A. Shinde for the Respondent-State and learned counsel Mr. S. T. Shelke for the intervenor.

¶10

The applicant is one of the accused in Crime No. I-221/2013 registered with Parner Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is one of the Directors of Sahakar Maharshi Kisan Varal Patil Rural Non-Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Nighoj, Taluka Parner. In the extension branch of the Credit Society at Parner, the complainant had deposited certain amounts and had saving bank accounts

¶11

1/3

¶12

in the branch. His total amount in the Credit Society is Rs.2,60,589/(Rupees two lac sixty thousand five hundred eighty nine only). It appears that the Credit Society is in financial trouble and office of the Credit Society is closed. The amount of the complainant has not been returned by the Credit Society and therefore a complaint was lodged by the complainant against the Directors and the persons managing the activities of the Credit Society.

¶13

During the course of hearing, it was seen that the Credit Society is in trouble and a Board of Administrators has been appointed. The Administrator has taken charge of the activities of the Credit Society. It is also transpired during the course of argument that office of the Credit Society is closed and the Board of Administrators is doing nothing. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr. Dhorde that reading of whole of the FIR does not, in any manner, indicate that the applicant had played any role in the alleged misappropriation or cheating. His name has been mentioned in the FIR only because he was one of the Directors of the Credit Society. It is also pointed out that the applicant had resigned from the Credit Society as he was working as Manager with Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank. The applicant has stated in his resignation that due to his personal difficulties, he could not continue as a Director.

¶14

2/3

¶15

3 appln20-14

¶16

The learned Assistant P.P. Mrs. Shinde and learned counsel Mr.

¶17

Shelke, assisting the Prosecution have not been able to show anything against the applicant during the course of hearing. The applicant cannot be put behind bars only because he was one of the Directors of the Credit Society wherein alleged misappropriation was committed.

¶18

Learned Assistant PP has submitted that total misappropriation is of about Rs.6 crores. However, the details thereof are not placed before the Court. In addition to this, as already stated, the role of the applicant has not been defined and nothing has come during the course of argument which could be treated as adverse to the applicant. In the circumstances, I pass the following order.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

i. The applicant shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount in the event of his arrest in FIR/Crime No.I-221/2013 registered with Parner Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

ii. The applicant shall attend the office of the Investigating Officer as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶22

iii. The application stands disposed of.

¶23

( M. L. TAHALIYANI, J )

¶24

JPC

¶25

3/3

Prabhakar Kanhu Lalge v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar Kanhu Lalge 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

Gajanan Bapurao Pawar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Trimbak Pandurang Patil and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramkunwar Sardarsingh Dhakka Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ratanlal Mohanlal Bhattad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Bharat Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Uja Ajay Vijay Murlidhar Dalvi Vs the State of Maharashtra