POPATLAL DIPCHAND ODHEKAR Vs. SENIOR INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. This is an application for anticipatory bail. The offence registered is under sections 406, 408, 409, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence was registered on the basis of the report of the Government Auditor who audited the accounts of the Nashik Cooperative Credit and Capital Ltd., Dindori Road, Nashik. The present Applicant was working as Manager with the said Bank. The offence has been allegedly committed by the Directors, employees, staff members and borrowers of the said Bank. The extent of misappropriation and fraud alleged is Rs.3,62,45,924/-. The allegation is that the accused acting in conspiracy have released large loans without complying with the requirements of law. The loans were released in favour of the Directors and their relatives.

(2.) SO far as the present Applicant is concerned, it is alleged that during his tenure, there was illegality in releasing loan in favour of seven parties. The allegation is that in breach of provisions of the bye-laws, the Applicant acting in conspiracy with the other accused have released large amounts by way of loan. As stated earlier, the allegation is as regards seven loan transactions. The report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Nashik is taken on record. The report fairly discloses that the Applicant himself is not a borrower. The allegation is that large amounts are due and payable by the borrowers to whom loans were released during the tenure of the Applicant as Manager.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that from 1998 onwards the Applicant is not concerned with the said society. The Directors who are responsible for sanction of the loan are granted protection by this Court and therefore, there is no reason why the protection should be denied to the Applicant. The learned A.P.P. stated that according to the record, the Applicant was in the employment till 30th June 2000 and his role is very clear in releasing the loan in favour of seven concerns. The borrowers have not repaid the loan. He submitted that the Application No.4221 of 2006 by another Manager is not entertained by this Court.