GIRISH DHRUVA DHARASKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicants who have an apprehension that they are likely to be arrested in connection with an offence which is registered by the Pimpri Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406 of the IPC.

(2.) THE Small Industries Development Bank of India disbursed the amount of Rs.1 crore to the applicant no.1 out of the total sanctioned amount of Rs.274 lakhs for the purpose of starting and developing the project of construction of cultural park, amusement park, water park. The finance which was given was fully secured by the Bank. After an amount of Rs.1 crore was disbursed, routine inspection was carried out by the officers of the Bank and it was noticed that the entire amount had not been consumed for the purpose of carrying out the construction of the said cultural park. An inquiry was made with their bank in respect of the cheques which were issued by the Bank in favour of various firms who had allegedly supplied the said material which was to be used in the amusement park and in the said enquiry, it transpired that all these firms were proprietary firms in the name of the applicant no.1. Therefore, a notice was issued to the applicant and an explanation was sought, however, satisfactory explanation according to the bank was not given. The bank, therefore, issued a notice under Section 13 of the Securitisation Act and demanded the entire amount which it had paid along with the interest and the entire property of the applicant was seized and thereafter, criminal complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC was filed.

(3.) LEARNED APP appearing on behalf of the State invited my attention to the valuation report submitted by one of the valuers which indicated that the amount which was to be invested in the said cultural park was misappropriated. This, however, was vehemently denied by the Counsel for the applicants. He submitted that the valuation report which was submitted clearly contradicted the notice which was issued by the bank under Section 13 of the said Act. He submitted that the figures which was shown in the valuation report were under valued.