Allowed

Balaprasad Gyaniramji Joshi v. Sanjay Mulchandra Pande and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2014APPLN/3186/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court cancelled anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court. The bail was set aside as the lower court failed to consider material showing the nature of fraud involved, unrecovered stolen property, and the need for custodial interrogation to uncover further improprieties.

What did the court decide?

The order granting anticipatory bail is set aside and cancelled. The respondent-accused is to be taken in custody.

Balaprasad Gyaniramji Joshi Vs Sanjay Mulchandra Pande… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 Application 3186/2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Application No.3186 of 2014

¶4

Balaprasad s/o Gyaniramji Joshi.

¶5

.. Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sanjay s/o Mulchandra Pande And Another.

¶8

.. Respondents.

¶9

Shri. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for applicant. Shri. P.S. Paranjape, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶10

Shri. B.L. Dhas, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

¶12

DATE : 2^nd DECEMBER 2014

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

The application is filed for cancellation of relief of anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hingoli in Crime No.6/2014. Crime was registered on the basis of directions given by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a private complaint filed by the applicant-bank. Both the sides are heard.

¶15

2 Application 3186/2014

¶16

In the private complaint allegations were made by the bank that present respondent No.1 Sanjay Pande was working as Branch Officer in Hingoli Branch at the relevant time. He created false record of loan of two kinds and he withdrew amount from the bank. It is contended that by creating false record of loan as against salary amount, he withdrew amount of rupees two lakhs and as against one fixed deposit he withdrew amount of Rs.38,000/-. It is contended that there was no application moved to the bank for loan and there was no sanction of loan but by joining hands with other staff, respondent Sanjay created false record and withdrew the amount and misappropriated it. After making investigation of the case charge sheet is filed for offences under sections 404, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 477(A), 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The application for anticipatory bail was moved by the present respondent No.1 and the application was opposed by the investigating agency. The order made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that the contentions made by the respondent-accused that he had

¶18

3 Application 3186/2014

¶19

taken the sanction of the President of the bank for loan is taken into consideration. The Court has observed that probably the dispute is of civil nature and relief is granted subject to condition of depositing the amount of Rs.1.5 lakh.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondentaccused submitted that in the year 2008 itself certificate was obtained under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act by the Bank. He submitted that the respondent-accused left the job in the year 2013 and at that time he deposited with the bank amount of Rs.97,000/-. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid order made by the Additional Sessions Judge the accused deposited amount of Rs.1.5 lakh more and so it needs to be treated as a dispute of civil nature. As against this, learned counsel for the applicant-bank submitted that only because some amount of the total amount due which is Rs.6.75 lakhs is deposited by the accused, it cannot be said that the dispute was of civil nature. He submitted that aforesaid facts constitute offence for which the crime

¶21

was registered. He submitted that when there was

¶22

4 Application 3186/2014

¶23

specific contention that he had record of sanction of the President in respect of the loan it was necessary for the police to make investigation and further it was necessary for the police to recover the stolen property. He submitted that the money taken away from the bank falls under section 410 of the Indian Penal Code and in such a case the stolen property needs to be recovered. He submitted that only due to extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the accused the stolen property could not be recovered and then the accused left Maharashtra and the bank is unable to recover anything.

¶24

The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused did not commit breach of any conditions of bail and so the relief of anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled. It is the submission of the bank-applicant that the order itself was wrong, illegal and it was made without considering the material and the necessity of custodial interrogation. He placed reliance on the case of the Apex Court reported as (2001) 6 SCC 338 (Puran v. Rambilas) . In the aforesaid case the Apex Court has discussed the power given to this Court under section 439(2) of the

¶25

5 Application 3186/2014

¶26

Code of Criminal Procedure. It is observed that if the order made by the Sessions Court is illegal and the Sessions Court has not considered the relevant material then such order can be cancelled by this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent-accused submitted that now charge-sheet is filed and so there is no necessity of cancellation of the order. Such submission cannot lie in the mouth of the accused who acted dishonestly and who was expected to protect the interests of the bank. He created false record and withdrew the amount and cheated the bank. Such instances are increasing day by day. It is already observed that stolen property is not recovered and is not available. There is clear probability that many more instances can reveal after custodial interrogation. When such dishonest person is involved in the matter it becomes necessary for police to do thorough investigation to ascertain as to whether there are other instances. More record can become available and involvement of others can be ascertained only after custodial interrogation. This Court holds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed

¶28

6 Application 3186/2014

¶29

error in granting relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the respondent-accused. This Court holds that the reliefs needs to be cancelled and the order needs to be set aside and the respondent needs to be put to custody.

¶30

In the result the application is allowed. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting relief of anticipatory bail is set aside & cancelled. The respondent -accused is to be taken in custody.

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondent-accused prays for stay of this order. The prayer is rejected.

¶32

Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J. )

¶33

rsl

Balaprasad Gyaniramji Joshi v. Sanjay Mulchandra Pande and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaprasad Gyaniramji Joshi v. Sanjay Mulchandra Pande and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Rafiuddin MD Aminoddin Maniya and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Parasram Pandurang Anbhule and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sangamnath Revanappa Satanure Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Manoj Subhashappa Mule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhakar Savlaram Bhalshankar Vs Prabhakar Sahebrao Nagre and Another

Balasaheb@Ahsok Abasaheb Galdhar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others