Allowed

Vilas Shravan Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Aug 2021ABA/2080/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to applicants charged with offenses under the IPC regarding alleged fraud in a cooperative credit society, subject to conditions ensuring their cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Applications disposed of with condition that applicants attend Investigating Officer as required and cooperate with the agency; bail liable to be cancelled upon breach.

Vilas Shravan Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

10 ABA 2080-19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2080 OF 2019

¶4

SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN

¶5

Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2021.08.09 16:24:55 +0530

¶6

Vilas Shravan Shinde.. Applicant

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra..Respondent

¶9

Mr. Kuldeep Nikam for the Applicant.
Mr. Y.Y. Dabke, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶10

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2084 OF 2019

¶11

Sanjay Ramchandra Pandit.. Applicant
 V/s.

¶12

The State of Maharashtra..Respondent

¶13

Dr. Uday Warunjikar a/w Mr. Sumit Kate for the Applicant.
Mr. Y.Y. Dabke, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶14

CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

¶15

DATE : 07TH AUGUST, 2021

¶16

P.C.

¶17

1. Both these applications are taken up together for disposal

¶18

inasmuch as they involve a prayer for pre-arrest bail in Crime No.

¶19

217 of 2019 of Police Station Koregaon, District Satara, under

¶20

Section 406, 420, 409, 465, 467, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶21

Sneha Chavan page 1 of 5

¶22

10 ABA 2080-19

¶23

2.The Applicant Vilas Shinde in ABA No. 2080 of 2019 at the
relevant time was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Divyadatta
Digambar Nagri Sahakari Credit Society (‘the Credit Society’ for
short) while the Applicant Sanjay Pandit in ABA No. 2084 of 2019
was a certified Auditor for the period from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015.

¶24

3.The allegation is that the Credit Society had sanctioned
various loans during the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2016,
without obtaining adequate/proper security. It is alleged that the
loans were distributed amongst the relatives and friends of the main
accused, who are the members of the Board of Directors of the
Credit Society. It is alleged that it has resulted into huge loss to the
Credit Society and the investors, to the tune of more than Rs.30
crores.

¶25

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicants and the learned APP.

¶26

5.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant Vilas
Shinde that the Applicant was appointed as a CEO in the year 2017
and therefore, he is not responsible for the transactions of loan prior
to his appointment as a CEO. It is pointed out that prior to the

¶27

10 ABA 2080-19

¶28

registration of the present FIR, there was another FIR being Crime
No. 369 of 2017 registered at the Koregaon police station in respect
of similar allegations. It is pointed out that this court by an order
dated 11.07.2019 in ABA No. 76 of 2018 with connected matters,
has granted anticipatory bail to the Applicant Vilas Shinde in Crime
No. 369 of 2017. The learned Counsel has pointed out that this
Court had found that the Applicant being the CEO was not a party to
the decision of sanction and distribution of the loans, and was
bound by the directions of the Board of Directors. It is submitted
that the Applicant has no role to play in sanctioning of the said
loans.

¶29

6.The learned counsel for the Applicant Sanjay Pandit submits
that Applicant was merely a certified Auditor. He pointed out that
only allegation is that the Applicant had not taken note of certain
transactions of mortgage loans in the Auditor Report and secondly,
there was no report made to the Superior Officer under Section
81(5B) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for
taking action against the concerned members of the Board of
Directors. The learned Counsel has pointed out the communication
dated 13.07.2019 addressed to the Additional Auditor (Class-I),
Satara pointing out that concerned office bearers had failed to

¶30

Sneha Chavan page 3 of 5

¶31

10 ABA 2080-19

¶32

furnish record about the mortgage loans in spite of repeated
demands. He pointed out that the interim protection has been
granted to the Applicants which is operating close to two years now.
The Applicants have co-operated with the Investigating Agency and
the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary in the
circumstances.

¶33

7.The learned APP submitted that, as per the instructions from
the Investigating Officer, the Applicants have not co-operated for the
investigation. The learned APP submitted that huge amount is
involved, which is required to be recovered. The learned APP further
points out that part investigation is complete and chargesheet is
already filed against accused No.1.

¶34

8. I have considered the circumstances and the submissions

¶35

made. Prima facie, it appears that Applicant Vilas Shinde, was
working as CEO from 2017 to 16.08.2019 while the Applicant
Sanjay Pandit was working as a certified Auditor for a period of
three years from 2012-2013 to 2014-15 and thus, their role would
be limited. It further appears that the Applicants Vilas Shinde has
been granted anticipatory bail, as noticed earlier, in the previous
offence on similar allegations. It is not pointed out as to what is the

¶36

10 ABA 2080-19

¶37

nature of the non-cooperation of the Applicants. Part investigation is
complete and chargesheet is said to be filed against Accused No.1.

¶38

9.In the result, the Criminal applications are disposed of in
terms of order dated 25.09.2019 subject to the condition that the
Applicants shall attend the Investigating Officer as and when
required and shall co-operate with the investigating agency and
shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence/witnesses. In the
event of breach of any of the conditions, the bail is liable to be
cancelled.

¶39

C.V. BHADANG, J.

¶40

Sneha Chavan page 5 of 5

Vilas Shravan Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilas Shravan Shinde 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

Ziyauddin Mohd. Riyazuddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandrakant Shripath Tambokar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramod Kumar Raghaoram Upadhyay Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suryanath Ramraj Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun Savjibhai Sitapara Vs the State of Maharashtra

Iqbal Amhad M Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra