Allowed

Prakash Appa Kale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Mar 2021ABA/437/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to two applicants accused of negligence regarding fertilizer shortage in a cooperative society audit under Sections 408, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. The court observed the applicants cooperated with the investigation and were not identified as beneficiaries of the alleged loss.

What did the court decide?

Applicants directed to be released on bail upon furnishing PR bonds of Rs.30,000 each with one or two sureties.

Prakash Appa Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 12.ABA-437-20.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.437 OF 2020

¶5

1. Prakash Appa Kale, &
2. Shahaji Raghunath Jadhav. .... Applicants
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Advocate i/b. Nitesh J. Mohite, for the
Applicanta.

¶7

Smt. A.A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 19th MARCH, 2021

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1.The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in

¶11

connection with C.R.No.46/2020 registered at Shirol Police
Station, District-Kolhapur on 21.1.2020 under Sections 408,

¶12

420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.

¶13

2.The FIR is lodged by one Dhondiram Chougule,

¶14

who was a Chartered Accountant and was on the Panel of
Government of Maharashtra as Auditor. He had conducted

¶15

1 of 5

¶16

Deshmane (PS)

¶17

 : 2 : 12.ABA-437-20.odt

¶18

audit in respect of Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Kolhapur,
which was a co-operative society, hereinafter referred to as ‘the
said society’. The said society has 63 branches and one of
them was Shirol branch. The Branch Manager was Amar
Gurav. The present Applicants were Supervisors for that
Branch. The duty of the Applicants was to see how much
quantity of goods was available, inspect the accounts and keep
control over the profit and loss. There are allegations that
between 1.4.2018 to 31.3.2019, the informant had conducted

¶19

the audit. After the audit, it was found that there was
substantial loss because there was shortage of fertilizers and
other goods. The FIR mentions that the accused Amar Gurav
had deposited Rs.15,90,000/- and accused Nilesh had
deposited Rs.50,000/- and thus the total unrecovered loss was
quantified to Rs.20,32,272.36.

¶20

3.The allegations against the present Applicants are

¶21

that on 20.9.2018 the Applicant Prakash had given a report
that there were goods worth Rs.187.20 metric tonnes but the
godown has capacity of maximum 71 metric tonnes and,

¶22

2 of 5

¶23

 : 3 : 12.ABA-437-20.odt

¶24

therefore, it was a wrong report. The Applicant No.2 had
also given a report based on wrong facts. On this allegations,
the FIR was lodged.

¶25

4.Heard Shri Satyavrat Joshi, learned Counsel for
the Applicants and Smt. A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the
State.

¶26

5.Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that

¶27

before the FIR was lodged the said society had conducted their
internal audit and at the end of it there were allegations that
the Applicants had not pointed out shortage of funds and
goods to the main office. After this audit was conducted in
April, 2019, the society passed a resolution that the FIR be
lodged against accused Amar Gurav and it was recommended
that administrative action be taken against both the Applicants
by holding back their increment and by giving them warning.
He submitted that even the said society did not look at them
as offenders and only administrative action was taken against
them.

¶28

3 of 5

¶29

 : 4 : 12.ABA-437-20.odt

¶30

6.Learned A.P.P. produced the investigation papers
before me. It contains the report submitted by both of these
Applicants and she opposed the Application.

¶31

7.I have considered these submissions and I have

¶32

perused the reports. The report given by the Applicant
Prakash are dated 19.12.2018 and 6.10.2018. The audit was
conducted by the first informant in January, 2019. Similarly
the report given by Applicant No.2 Shahaji Jadhav was dated
25.4.2018. Therefore, there was a gap between their reports
and the audit in 2019 January. The society itself has found
negligence on the part of both the Applicants. But no criminal
offence is attributed against them. The investigation carried
out so far has not revealed that the Applicants were
beneficiaries in any manner. The Applicants have attended the
police station as directed and have cooperated with the
investigation. In this background, they can be protected by an
order of anticipatory bail. They, of course, will have to attend
the concerned police station and will have to cooperate with
the investigation. Hence, the following order :

¶33

4 of 5

¶34

 : 5 : 12.ABA-437-20.odt

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.46/2020 registered at Shirol Police Station, District-Kolhapur, the Applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing PR bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties each in the like amount.

¶37

Digitally signed by (ii) Anticipatory Bail Application stands Pradeepkumar Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane P. Deshmane Date: 2021.03.22 18:54:56 +0530 disposed of accordingly.

¶38

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶39

Deshmane (PS)

¶40

5 of 5

Prakash Appa Kale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Appa Kale and Anr. 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

Bhagwan Lavhersingh Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prafulla Prabhakar Kharade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vimal Namdeo Kakde Vs the Senior Inspector of Police

Pravin Madhukar Kharde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilkantheswar Siddheshwar Dhamame Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Keppanna Bhoie Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.