Allowed

Sandip Shankar Patil @ Sandip Ashok Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC17 Dec 2024ABA/1440/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed anticipatory bail applications for Sandip Patil and Mangala More, accused of offences under the IPC and MPID Act in a credit society misappropriation case. The court held that absent evidence of their active participation in the crime or receipt of illicit money, their detention was not justified.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed by confirming interim orders dated 03.09.2024 & 07.10.2024.

Sandip Shankar Patil @ Sandip Ashok Patil Vs the State of… — Corruption | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:30407

¶2

933-ABA-1440-2024+.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1440 OF 2024

¶5

Sandip Shankar Patil @ Sandip Ashok Patil

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶8

WITH

¶9

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1661 OF 2024

¶10

Mangala Supadu More
VERSUS

¶11

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶12

¶13

• Mr. R. T. Kotali, Advocate for the Applicants

¶14

• Ms. M. N. Ghanekar, APP for the Respondent/State

¶15

• Mr. C. B. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Informant

¶16

¶17

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE:DECEMBER 17, 2024

¶18

PER COURT :

¶19

1.Mr. Chaudhari, learned Counsel, causes

¶20

appearance on behalf of Informant and seeks leave to
assist APP.

¶21

2.Having regard to the nature of offence, leave

¶22

granted.

¶23

3.Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with

¶24

with C.R. No. 400/2024 registered with Dhule Taluka

¶25

Police Station, Dist. Dhule for the offences punishable

¶26

PAGE 1 OF 5

¶27

Umesh

¶28

933-ABA-1440-2024+.odt

¶29

under Sections 420, 409, 406, 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments)
Act, 1999.

¶30

4.First informant filed an application under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before

¶31

the Sessions Court, Dhule seeking directions for
registration of the crime against Respondents which
include present Applicants. It is the case of the
Informant that Applicant – Mangala is Director of Shri
Mauli Multi State Credit Co-operative Society Limited
and Applicant – Sandip is agent thereof. There is
allegation that Applicants conducted various seminars
etc. wherein the respected citizens so also politicians
and the authorities used to be invited. It is alleged
that by doing so the investors were impressed and lured
to deposit money with credit society. There is
allegation that other than regular deposits, the
Informant has deposited sum of Rs. 2 lacs in fixed
deposit which was due and payable on 02.04.2020. He was
expecting to receive Rs. 2,56,000/- at the time of
maturity of the said deposit. It was also assured that

¶32

PAGE 2 OF 5

¶33

Umesh

¶34

933-ABA-1440-2024+.odt

¶35

he would be given 2 tola gold coin, however, in fact an
amount equivalent to 1 tola gold coin was paid. It is
also stated therein that under the said scheme the
investors were assured that they will be taken to tour
of Balaji, however, only few persons were taken and
Informant was not taken. It is stated that in January,
2022 an offence came to be registered against Chairman
of the Society and was arrested. Thereafter, the
application was moved before the Sessions Court for
seeking registration of the crime.

¶36

5.Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits
that Applicant – Sandip is not the agent of the said
Society but is serving with police force. It is further
submitted that Applicant – Mangala is not the Director
of the said Society but she was agent and in fact she
is also victim of the crime as through her son she has
invested money in the Society which is not returned to
her. It is thus his contention that in absence of any
evidence against these Applicants showing their
involvement in crime, their custodial interrogation is
not necessary. He has drawn attention of the Court to

¶37

the proceedings filed by the Informant before the

¶38

PAGE 3 OF 5

¶39

Umesh

¶40

933-ABA-1440-2024+.odt

¶41

Consumer Forum wherein initially present Applicants
were made party, however, subsequently a pursis was
filed and the complaint was withdrawn against them.

¶42

6.Learned APP and learned Counsel for Informant
have opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the
Applicants on the ground that the Credit Society has
duped number of investors. It is their contention that
owing to the amount involved in the misappropriation,
this is not a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail.
Learned Counsel for the Informant submitted that the
Informant has filed complaint against the Advocate who
was appearing on his behalf before the Consumer Forum.
Thus, it is his contention that he has not filed pursis
before the Consumer Forum, Dhule. A specific query was
made to him as to whether the Informant has withdrawn
the said pursis before the Consumer Forum. The response
thereto is in negative.

¶43

7.There is allegation that Applicant – Sandip is
the agent and Applicant – Mangala is the Director of
the Society. There is however absolutely no evidence on
record to indicate so except for one invitation wherein
her name is mentioned as Director. Merely because, her

¶44

PAGE 4 OF 5

¶45

Umesh

¶46

933-ABA-1440-2024+.odt

¶47

name is mentioned in the invitation as Director, she
cannot become a Director of the Society registered
under the Cooperative Societies Act. Apart from this,
perusal of the investigation papers indicates that
there is no evidence in order to show that the
Applicants are even recipients of the crime money/
Applicant – Mangala was paid the commission while
acting as agent and, therefore, she cannot be said to
be party to the crime. In order to bring the Applicant
– Mangala within the purview of Section 3 of the MPID
Act, there has to be some prima facie evidence to
indicate that she is also participating in the
affairs/business of the Society and received yields of
crime. In absence of any such evidence, there is no
reason for rejecting applications. Applicants have no
criminal history. They are not likely to abscond.

¶48

8.Having regard to the aforestated facts,

¶49

Applications are allowed by confirming interim orders
dated 03.09.2024 & 07.10.2024.

¶50

9.Pending application, if any, stands disposed

¶51

of.

¶52

PAGE 5 OF 5

¶53

Umesh

Sandip Shankar Patil @ Sandip Ashok Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Shankar Patil @ Sandip Ashok Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Akhtari Begum Akil Ahmed Qureshi and Ors. vs Prasad M. Shetty and Anr.

Sanjoy Shivdas Mukherjee vs State of Maharashtra

Smt. Akhtari Begum Akil Ahmed Qureshi and Ors. vs Mr. Prasad M. Shetty and Anr.

Shushila Rajendra Londhe Vs Agricultural College Dhule through Its Principal and Another

Shankar Babarao Jawanjal Vs the Joint Charity Commissioner Nanded Region and Others

Munjaji Ravji More Vs Panditrao Sakharam More and Others