{"id":201819,"date":"2009-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-07T06:26:03","modified_gmt":"2015-09-07T00:56:03","slug":"prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3971 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n            Prakesh Ramchandra     Kothavade,\n            Age 53 yrs., Occu.     Business,\n            R\/o. Phule Colony,     Kargaon Road,\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n            Chalisgaon, Dist.      Jalgaon.\n                                                             ..Applicant.\n\n                       VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n     1.     The State of Maharashtra\n\n     2.     The Superintendent of Police,\n            Jalgaon.\n                                                             ..Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                       \n     Shri.A.V.Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant.\n\n     Shri.N.H.Borade, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2\n     assisted by Shri.P.P.Chavan Advocate.\n                      \n                                       CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J.\n                                       DATED : 10th FEBRUARY, 2009.\n\n     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     .         Rule.     Heard forthwith.\n\n\n\n     2.        This     application      is filed      for      anticipatory\n\n\n\n\n\n     bail in connection with Crime No.              216\/2008 registered\n\n     with    Chalisgaon       Police    Station      for      the      offences\n\n     punishable       under    sections 406, 408, 409,             420,       465,\n\n\n\n\n\n     468, 471, 120-B, 201, r\/w.           34 of Indian Penal Code.\n\n\n\n     3.        The     said crime is registered on 19.10.2008 at\n\n\n\n\n                                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>\n                                            (    2     )\n\n\n\n\n     Chalisgaon           Police Station.           This application is filed\n\n<\/pre>\n
     before        this     Court     on        24nd       November,          2008.       The<\/p>\n
     application filed for anticipatory bail of the present<\/p>\n
     applicant          before     the     Sessions              Court      came     to     be<\/p>\n
     rejected on 11.11.2008.                   Hence, this application.\n<\/p>\n
     4.           The     facts as narrated in the application                            are<\/p>\n
     as follows.\n<\/p>\n
     .            The     applicant        is Ex-Director              of     Chalisgaon<\/p>\n
     Peoples<\/p>\n
     outstanding<\/p>\n
                       Co-operative<\/p>\n
                          dues
\n                                               Bank<\/p>\n
                                   towards the applicant.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          Ltd.       There\n\n                                                                            It\n                                                                                   is\n\n                                                                                   is\n                                                                                            no\n\n                                                                                          the\n                          \n     case     of the applicant that the Board of Administrator\n\n<\/pre>\n
     came     to be appointed in the year 2006.                          The applicant<\/p>\n
     elected        as     a     Director from 12.1.1999                 to      4.9.2006.\n<\/p>\n
     Thereafter,          as applicant was not in power,                         applicant<\/p>\n
     is     helpless        to    take necessary             action         against       the<\/p>\n
     delinquents.\n<\/p>\n
     5.           It      is further case of the applicant that                           the<\/p>\n
     Special        Auditor       Co-operative             Societies          Class       II,<\/p>\n
     served notice to the applicant under section 81(1)(3A)<\/p>\n
     of     the     Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,                              1960<\/p>\n
     dated        9.9.2008.         It was alleged in the                   said     notice<\/p>\n
     that     the applicant has misappropriated the amount                                  of<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                               (     3   )<\/p>\n
     the     Bank     and        cheated the Bank             when        applicant          was<\/p>\n
     elected as Director.                It is alleged that the applicant<\/p>\n
     has     not followed the Rules and Regulations laid                                    down<\/p>\n
     by R.B.I.        from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
     6.         On        9.9.2008       the        concerned auditor                has     not<\/p>\n
     given     the        relevant documents to answer                        the     notice,<\/p>\n
     therefore,           the applicant was constrained to file                              the<\/p>\n
     writ     petition.            Directions           were given in               the     writ<\/p>\n
     petition        to        supply the documents to the                     applicants.\n<\/p>\n
     However,<\/p>\n
     the<\/p>\n
                     all the documents were not made available to<\/p>\n
              applicant.                It     is       further       stated         in      the<\/p>\n
     application           that     the       complaint          is     filed        by      the<\/p>\n
     complainant in due haste.\n<\/p>\n
     7.         It        is     further          case of     the       applicant           that<\/p>\n
     apprehending              the arrest, the applicant filed criminal<\/p>\n
     bail     application No.                1042\/2008 for anticipatory bail<\/p>\n
     before     the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon<\/p>\n
     and same came to be rejected on 11.11.2008.\n<\/p>\n
     .          It        is     the    case         of the      applicant           that      on<\/p>\n
     23.10.2008 the applicant submitted reply to the notice<\/p>\n
     of     Auditor        of     the        Bank.      It is      the      case      of     the<\/p>\n
     applicant that he had deposited Rs.                             2,21,666\/- in the<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (    4    )<\/p>\n
     Bank     in     fixed        deposit         scheme in the           name       of     her<\/p>\n
     daughter        and        wife.        Till today the said                  amount     is<\/p>\n
     laying        in the Bank.          This shows that the applicant is<\/p>\n
     innocent        one.         It is further case of                 the        applicant<\/p>\n
     that     the        Sessions       Judge,          who    rejected            the     bail<\/p>\n
     application           of    the     present applicant,                 has     granted<\/p>\n
     anticipatory           bail       and       regular      bail      to        co-accused<\/p>\n
     persons in the same crime.                       The other companion judges<\/p>\n
     also     granted           anticipatory bail and regular                      bail      to<\/p>\n
     other     co-accused           persons.            The    Directors           who     had<\/p>\n
     obtained<\/p>\n
     taken     loan,<\/p>\n
                     loan and the relatives of Directors who<\/p>\n
                            had     been         granted regular             as     well
\n                                                                                           had<\/p>\n
                                                                                             as<\/p>\n
     anticipatory           bail,       but the person who had not                       taken<\/p>\n
     any     loan        and even who had not given any loan to                            his<\/p>\n
     relatives           like    applicant,           their      applications             were<\/p>\n
     rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     8.         The        application discloses various grounds                             on<\/p>\n
     which     applicant seeks anticipatory bail.                            The grounds<\/p>\n
     are narrated in para 29 of the application.\n<\/p>\n
     9.         The        application           is taken for final                hearing.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     The     learned        counsel          appearing         for      the        applicant\n\n     submits        that the present applicant though Ex-Director\n\n     during        his     period as Director, has not borrowed                            any\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>\n                                           (   5    )\n\n\n\n\n     loan     or his relatives have not borrowed any loan from\n\n     the     Bank.        He further submits that the Sessions Court\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n     has     released          Directors      as       well        as     borrowers       on\n\n     anticipatory          bail.        He also invited my attention                     to\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     the     contents          of the application and               submitted         that\n\n     details        are     given       in respect of the                Directors       and\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n     borrowers        to       whom     bail is granted by                the      Sessions\n\n     Court.         He     further submitted that the                    applicant        is\n\n     entitled        for       anticipatory        bail    on       the         ground    of\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     parity.         He further invited my attention to the                           fact\n\n     that\n\n     taken\n              though\n                           \n<\/pre>\n
                           relatives of some of the Directors<\/p>\n
               loan, they are released on anticipatory bail by
\n                                                                                      have<\/p>\n
     the     Sessions          Court.    However, the present                   applicant<\/p>\n
     though     not borrowed any loan or by his relatives, has<\/p>\n
     been     refused anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.\n<\/p>\n
     He     further        submits that the entire record is in                          the<\/p>\n
     custody        of     the Bank.       No purpose would be served                     by<\/p>\n
     keeping        the applicant behind the bar.                       The     applicant<\/p>\n
     is      ready        to    co-operate         with       the         investigating<\/p>\n
     machinery        and he will attend the concerned police                            as<\/p>\n
     and     when        directed by the Investigating Officer.                          He<\/p>\n
     further        submits       that even the applicant is ready                       to<\/p>\n
     attend     the        police       station every         day.            He    further<\/p>\n
     submits        that       the    applicant was           in        minority.        The<\/p>\n
     decisions        taken       by the Members of the Board are                        the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (    6     )<\/p>\n
     views     of     the majority Directors.                 According           to     the<\/p>\n
     applicant,        he along with other few Directors were                             in<\/p>\n
     minority        and therefore, whatever the resolutions have<\/p>\n
     been passed, granting illegal disbursement of loan, is<\/p>\n
     responsibility of those Directors who are in majority.\n<\/p>\n
     He     further     submitted that the fact that the                          present<\/p>\n
     applicant        has     kept amount of Rs.2,21,666\/- in                        fixed<\/p>\n
     deposit        scheme    in the name of daughter and wife                           and<\/p>\n
     said     amount is laying in the bank, that itself                                shows<\/p>\n
     that     applicant       is   innocent            person.           The      learned<\/p>\n
     counsel<\/p>\n
                    further    submitted          that prior to<\/p>\n
     issuing notice dated 9.9.2008, and after filing F.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            and        after<\/p>\n
     dated 19.10.2008, the borrower on their own accord and<\/p>\n
     on order of Court paid the dues.                      The recovery of dues<\/p>\n
     is going on.           Therefore, it cannot be prima facie case<\/p>\n
     of     fraud     or misappropriation of funds.                       He      further<\/p>\n
     submitted that while entertaining this application all<\/p>\n
     the     grounds which are taken in application in para 29<\/p>\n
     may be taken in to consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     10.        The     learned A.P.P.          assisted by the                 advocate<\/p>\n
     for     the Bank submitted that the Special Auditor Class<\/p>\n
     II     Co-operative, Chalisgaon, set the criminal law                                in<\/p>\n
     motion     by submitting criminal complaint in Chalisgaon<\/p>\n
     Police     Station,       which       came       to    be     registered             on<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                       (    7   )<\/p>\n
     19.10.2008 as Crime No.              216\/2008.      The total detected<\/p>\n
     fraud is of Rs.          5,51,23,000\/- with interest.\n<\/p>\n
     11.        The    learned A.P.P.          submitted that there                are<\/p>\n
     13     F.I.R.     came to be registered under sections                       406,<\/p>\n
     408,     409,     420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B r\/w.                  34 of       the<\/p>\n
     Indian        Penal Code.      According to the learned                A.P.P.,<\/p>\n
     the total fraud detected is of Rs.20,78,56,325\/-.                             The<\/p>\n
     various       crimes     are    registered        i.e.         Crime         Nos.\n<\/p>\n
     216\/2008, 248\/2008 to 259\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
     12.        It<\/p>\n
                      is further submitted by the learned A.P.P.\n<\/p>\n
     that      the      Special      Auditor       Class      II     found         the<\/p>\n
     illegalities,          misappropriation, siphoned of money                      of<\/p>\n
     the     bank,     violation of rules and regulations of                       the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra       Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Banking<\/p>\n
     Regulation       Act,     1949 and the notification issued                      by<\/p>\n
     the     R.B.I.     from time to time as well as violation of<\/p>\n
     exposure        limit of loan and also found the bogus                       loan<\/p>\n
     cases     and     disbursement of amount under the                    garb      of<\/p>\n
     loan.\n<\/p>\n
     13.        According to the learned A.P.P., the arrest is<\/p>\n
     part     of     process of investigation intended to                     secure<\/p>\n
     several         purposes.       The    accused        may      have      to     be<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                       (   8     )<\/p>\n
     questioned        in    detail   regarding      various         facets        of<\/p>\n
     motive,      preparation, commission and aftermath of                       the<\/p>\n
     crime     and the connection of other persons, if any, in<\/p>\n
     the     crime.     There are possibilities and circumstances<\/p>\n
     in    which the accused may provide information                      leading<\/p>\n
     to discovery of material facts.\n<\/p>\n
     14.       The learned A.P.P.             submitted following points<\/p>\n
     for rejection of bail.\n<\/p>\n
     a.\n<\/p>\n
     financial
\n               There
\n                         ig is sufficient material to indicate that<\/p>\n
                      irregularities,         dishonest     and      fraudulent<\/p>\n
     loan transactions have been taken place in the affairs<\/p>\n
     of the said bank, for which the Board of Directors and<\/p>\n
     certain borrowers, who were in collusion with them are<\/p>\n
     responsible.\n<\/p>\n
     b.        According        to the learned A.P.P., the                present<\/p>\n
     applicant was Director of the said bank from 12.1.1993<\/p>\n
     to    6.9.2006         The involvement of the applicant in                  the<\/p>\n
     alleged offence is clearly made out.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     c.        According to the learned A.P.P., the ground of\n\n     parity       does not exist, the other persons are released\n\n     on    bail     whose cases are of not that             serious         nature\n\n\n\n\n                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>\n                                         (    9    )\n\n\n\n\n     like     present        applicant.      Considering the nature                    and\n\n     gravity     of the offence, the applicant is not entitled\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n<\/pre>\n
     to be released on anticipatory bail.\n<\/p>\n
     d.         There     is     documentary          evidence          against        the<\/p>\n
     applicant.         The overtacts of applicant and others                            is<\/p>\n
     manifest.         The     crime    in        which      the      applicant          is<\/p>\n
     involved,       is very serious and involving conspiracy to<\/p>\n
     cheat     and defraud public institution in a                         systematic<\/p>\n
     manner.\n<\/p>\n
     e.         In\n                        \n                        the     present          crime,      involving            public\n                       \n     mischief        resulting     into serious            offences          involving\n\n     huge     illegal        finance, committed against the bank                         at\n\n     large,     in     this     event       it may be keep            in     view      the\n      \n\n\n     potential       threat, which may cause huge financial                            set\n   \n\n\n\n     back to gullible public i.e.                 depositors.\n\n\n\n     f.         There     was     designed        plan,         prima        facie       to\n\n\n\n\n\n     defraud     the depositors and members of the bank.                               The\n\n     bank     is put to loss of approximately 20 crore due                               to\n\n     finical     bungling, manipulations and money laundering.\n\n\n\n\n\n     The     applicant        joined    hands         with     other       Directors,\n\n     intentionally,          knowingly       and deliberately                defrauded\n\n     the bank.\n\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>\n                                          (    10     )\n\n\n\n\n     g.         The        Chairman, members of Board of                   Directors,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n     Manager        in        furtherance    of    their        common       intention\n\n     committed        breach       of trust and they have involved                       in\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     unlawfully           disbursement       of amount in crore to                  their\n\n     relatives        under the garb of loan.                The said so-called\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n     loan     was        not refunded from the borrowers.                    The      loan\n\n     was     given        for the purpose of business to                   the      close\n\n     relatives        of some of the Directors or Ex-Directors or\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     Manager.        In fact the business for which the loans are\n\n     given\n                              \n               were never in existence.                  The loan is disbursed\n\n<\/pre>\n
     by passing the provisions of Co-operative Law, by-laws<\/p>\n
     and     Rules        and Regulation to their               close      relatives,<\/p>\n
     well     wishers illegally without obtaining security and<\/p>\n
     mortgage        or       proper security from the borrowers.                        At<\/p>\n
     the     time        of     obtaining and sanctioning               loan       forged<\/p>\n
     documents        were       prepared and on that basis the                     loans<\/p>\n
     were granted by the Board of Directors.\n<\/p>\n
     h.         During            the       course         of       investigation,<\/p>\n
     prima-facie           it appears that there is systematic fraud<\/p>\n
     committed due to which the bank has caused great loss.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     i.         As        per    the master circular dated                 4th      July,\n\n     2007,     in        point     No.      6.2 - the      wilful        default         is\n\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>\n                                             (    11    )\n\n\n\n\n     defined      and        in     point       No.        6.3     -    diversion           and\n\n     siphoning         of        funds elaborately narrated.                   The        penal\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n     measures         are also narrated in 6.6(b) and in point No.\n\n     6.9     -    a     criminal         action is directed               to     be       taken\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n     against the borrower by the R.B.I.                          In the circular in\n\n     point No.         4.6.3 oral sanction is prohibited.\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n     j.          It        is further submitted by the learned A.P.P.\n\n     that     the total number of directors till 1998 were 13,\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n     till     21.2.2004           the number of directors were                       15     and\n\n     thereafter,\n\n     Directors         was\n                            \n                            17     directors were there.\n\n                                  dissolved      by the learned\n                                                                        The      Board\n\n                                                                              D.D.R.\n                                                                                             of\n\n                                                                                             on\n                           \n     6.9.2006         as     there       were     illegality.             There       was      6\n\n     committees            constituted by the Board of Directors.                            In\n\n     each     committee near about 5 directors were nominated.\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Amongst the directors in the 6 committees, each of the<\/p>\n
     Directors         were        given representation.                All      Directors<\/p>\n
     were     represented           in      two or three           committees.              The<\/p>\n
     committees            were     constituted as valuation                   committee,<\/p>\n
     supervision            committee, scrutiny committee,                       guarantor<\/p>\n
     committee,            loan sub committee, godown committee.                             In<\/p>\n
     the said committees, all the Directors were nominated.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     After       the report of all committees the loan case                                 has\n\n     to     be    put       up     before the         Board      of     Directors           for\n\n     sanctioning            the     loan.       The        Directors,          who         were\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>\n                                         (     12     )\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     represented in the above committees, were again sit as<\/p>\n
     a     Board of Directors to sanction the loan.                            It     means<\/p>\n
     each of the Director were acted in duel capacity.                                   All<\/p>\n
     these     registers          are seized by the I.O.                  It     is     also<\/p>\n
     disclosed        in     the     investigation           that       though        these<\/p>\n
     committees            were     there,     in         fact,     they        have     not<\/p>\n
     performed         their        duties.         No      loan        officer          was<\/p>\n
     appointed.            Managing Director was also not appointed.\n<\/p>\n
     All     the work to scrutinize, to value the property, to<\/p>\n
     verify     the        goods     etc.      was         with     the        Board       of<\/p>\n
     Directors.\n<\/p>\n
     k.         It     is     further        submitted         that       the       earlier<\/p>\n
     auditors        have time and again objected and pointed out<\/p>\n
     the     bogus loan cases, however, the Board of Directors<\/p>\n
     were     in power till 6.9.2006, therefore, they have not<\/p>\n
     filed any criminal case because they could have become<\/p>\n
     accused     and that criminal case could be filed against<\/p>\n
     themselves        and        therefore, knowing             and      deliberately<\/p>\n
     they     avoided        and     ignored        the    audit        report.          The<\/p>\n
     present     applicant was also in supervision                           committee,<\/p>\n
     guarantor        committee,       godown committee and                    valuation<\/p>\n
     committee.\n<\/p>\n
     l.         It     is     further        submitted by           learned         A.P.P.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                           (    13   )\n\n\n\n\n     that     as        per     the resolution dated           13.7.2001          though\n\n     again     the        loan sub committee, audit               and      inspection\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n<\/pre>\n
     committee, staff sub committee, recovery sub committee<\/p>\n
     were     reconstituted,            however, those          committees            were<\/p>\n
     never     come in existence, those committees were remain<\/p>\n
     on paper only.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n     m.         It        is    further       submitted      that       one     of     the\n\n     director           by name Rajendra Choudhari filed a                     criminal\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     writ     petition          No.      100\/2009       before        the       Hon'ble\n\n     Division\n\n     248\/08        to\n                        Bench\n                              \n                          256\/08,\n                                 for interim protection in\n\n                                        258\/08 and 259\/08,\n                                                                           crime\n\n                                                                      however,\n                                                                                       No.\n\n                                                                                       the\n                             \n     Hon'ble        Division          Bench refuse to grant             the     interim\n\n<\/pre>\n
     protection and kept the matter on 2.2.2009.\n<\/p>\n
     n.         It        is    further       submitted that          there       is     no<\/p>\n
     possibility           to recover the huge amount and therefore,<\/p>\n
     there is every possibility that applicant is likely to<\/p>\n
     abscond        and will tamper with the prosecution evidence<\/p>\n
     and witnesses and hence, bail may be rejected.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     15.        I        have    given     anxious consideration                to     the\n\n\n\n\n\n     rival     submissions.            Since the present application                     is\n\n     filed     for seeking anticipatory bail, it may not be in\n\n     the     interest of either side to comment on the                            merits\n\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>\n                                          (     14    )\n\n\n\n\n     in     detail      of     the matter since investigation                     is     in\n\n     progress.          Therefore,        I    proceed          to    decide           this\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n     application,            mentioning       relevant facts            confined         to\n\n     prayer in this application.\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     16.          At    this      juncture,         it would be         relevant         to\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n     refer     to      the     observations of the Apex                 Court        while\n\n     dealing        with      the applications for anticipatory                       bail\n\n     and     scope      of section 438 of Cr.P.C.                 Section 438            of\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     Cr.P.C.           makes       special          provision        for       granting\n\n     \"anticipatory\n\n     present        Code\n                           \n                             bail\"\n\n                              of 1973.\n                                       which        was       introduced\n\n                                              As observed in Balchand\n                                                                                in     the\n\n                                                                                      Jain\n                          \n     Vs.       State         of      M.P.,      (1976)        4      S.C.C.           572,\n\n     \"anticipatory           bail\"    means a bail in anticipation                       of\n\n     arrest.           The    expression         \"anticipatory             bail\"         is\n      \n\n\n     misnomer        inasmuch        as it is not as if bail                 presently\n   \n\n\n\n     granted      in anticipation of arrest.                   Where a competent\n\n     Court     grants        \"anticipatory bail\", it makes an                       order\n\n     that    in      the     event     of arrest,         a    person        shall       be\n\n\n\n\n\n     released        on bail.        There is no question of release on\n\n<\/pre>\n
     bail unless a person is arrested and, therefore, it is<\/p>\n
     only    on      arrest that the order granting                     anticipatory<\/p>\n
     bail becomes operative.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     .          It     is also observed in the said judgment that\n\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>\n                                         (    15     )\n\n\n\n\n     the     the     power       of granting        \"anticipatory               bail\"       is\n\n     extraordinary          in    character and only                 in     exceptional\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n     cases     where        it    appears     that a          person        is     falsely\n\n<\/pre>\n
     implicated or a frivolous case is launched against him<\/p>\n
     or    “there         are reasonable grounds for holding that                             a<\/p>\n
     persons        accused      of    an    offence          is      not       likely      to<\/p>\n
     abscond,        or     otherwise       misuse his liberty                  while       on<\/p>\n
     bail”,        that     such power may be exercised.                      Thus,       the<\/p>\n
     power     is “unusual in nature” and is entrusted only to<\/p>\n
     the     higher echelons of judicial service i.e.                              a Court<\/p>\n
     of Sessions and a High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     17.        The       Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh                           Singh<\/p>\n
     Sibba     V.        State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 S.C.C.\n<\/p>\n
     565     has made observations regarding scope of                              section<\/p>\n
     438 of Cr.P.C.             The Supreme Court has observed in para<\/p>\n
     26 that section 438 is a procedural provision which is<\/p>\n
     concerned with the personal liberty of the individual,<\/p>\n
     who     is entitled to the benefit of the presumption                                  of<\/p>\n
     innocence        since      he    is    not,       on      the       date     of     his<\/p>\n
     application          for    anticipatory bail, convicted of                          the<\/p>\n
     offence        in     respect     of which he seeks bail.                       It     is<\/p>\n
     further        observed      in    the same paragraph                  that       since<\/p>\n
     denial     of        bail    amounts to deprivation                   of     personal<\/p>\n
     liberty,        the court should lean against the imposition<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (   16   )<\/p>\n
     of     unnecessary          restrictions on the scope of                      Section<\/p>\n
     438     , especially when not imposed by the legislature.\n<\/p>\n
     In     para 31, it is further observed that in regard                                 to<\/p>\n
     anticipatory           bail, if the proposed accusation appears<\/p>\n
     to     stem    not from motives of furthering the                            ends     of<\/p>\n
     justice,      but          from some ulterior motive,                  the        object<\/p>\n
     being     to injure and humiliate the applicant by having<\/p>\n
     him     arrested,          a        direction for the        release          of     the<\/p>\n
     applicant        on        bail in the event of his                arrest          would<\/p>\n
     generally        be made.            On the other hand, if it                 appears<\/p>\n
     likely,<\/p>\n
     that     taking<\/p>\n
                   considering the antecedents of the applicant,<\/p>\n
                            advantage of the orders of                    anticipatory<\/p>\n
     bail,     he will flee from justice, such an order                                would<\/p>\n
     not     be made.           But, the converse of these propositions<\/p>\n
     is     not necessarily true.                In fact, there are numerous<\/p>\n
     considerations,             the       combined       effect of         which       must<\/p>\n
     weigh     with        the       court while      granting          or     rejecting<\/p>\n
     anticipatory           bail.         The nature and seriousness of the<\/p>\n
     proposed      charges, the context of the events likely to<\/p>\n
     lead     to    the         making       of the   charges,          a    reasonable<\/p>\n
     possibility           of       the    applicant’s presence              not       being<\/p>\n
     secured       at the trial, a reasonable apprehension                              that<\/p>\n
     witnesses        will          be    tampered    with       and      “the         larger<\/p>\n
     interests        of the public or the State” are some of the<\/p>\n
     considerations             which       the court has to keep                 in     mind<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (    17   )<\/p>\n
     while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.\n<\/p>\n
     .          In        para 40 and 41 the Apex Court has                   further<\/p>\n
     observed           that     a blanket order i.e.         an      order         which<\/p>\n
     serves        as     a blanket to cover or to protect                    any     and<\/p>\n
     every kind of allegedly unlawful activity, in fact any<\/p>\n
     eventuality,              likely    or unlikely regarding which,                  no<\/p>\n
     concrete           information can possibly be had, should                      not<\/p>\n
     generally be passed.                Such a blanket order is bound to<\/p>\n
     cause     serious interference with the functions of                            the<\/p>\n
     police.\n<\/p>\n
     .          It        is further observed in para 36 that if                       an<\/p>\n
     application           for anticipatory bail is made to the High<\/p>\n
     Court     or the Court of Session, it must apply its                            own<\/p>\n
     mind     to        the question and decide whether a                  case      has<\/p>\n
     been     made        out for granting such relief.                  It     cannot<\/p>\n
     leave     the question for the decision of the Magistrate<\/p>\n
     concerned           under Section 437 of the Code, as and                      when<\/p>\n
     an     occasion           arises.    It is further observed in                 para<\/p>\n
     27,     38 and 39 that the filing of an F.I.R.                        is not        a<\/p>\n
     condition precedent to the exercise of the power under<\/p>\n
     section        438.         Anticipatory bail can be granted                   even<\/p>\n
     after     an        F.I.R.     is filed, so long as the               applicant<\/p>\n
     has     not been arrested.               But the provisions of section<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (    18        )<\/p>\n
     438 cannot be invoked after the arrest of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     It    is    further observed in para 42 that an                              order       of<\/p>\n
     bail can be passed under Section 438(1) without notice<\/p>\n
     to    the Public Prosecutor.               But notice should issue to<\/p>\n
     the    Public       Prosecutor        or     the          Government           Advocate<\/p>\n
     forthwith        and    the     question             of      bail        should          be<\/p>\n
     re-examined in the light of the respective contentions<\/p>\n
     of the parties.         The ad-interim order too must conform<\/p>\n
     to    the    requirements        of        the       section          and      suitable<\/p>\n
     conditions       should be imposed on the applicant even at<\/p>\n
     that stage.\n<\/p>\n
     18.         In   case    of State represented by                         the      C.B.I.\n<\/p>\n
     Vs.    Anil Sharama, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases                                      187,<\/p>\n
     the Supreme Court in para 6 has observed thus :-\n<\/p>\n
                 Custodial     interrogation is qualitatively more<\/p>\n
                 elicitation-oriented                 than             questioning              a<\/p>\n
                 suspect      who     is    well           ensconced                with        a<\/p>\n
                 favourable       order     under          Section 438               of      the<\/p>\n
                 Code.       In      case             like           this         effective<\/p>\n
                 interrogation       of     a     suspected person                     is     of<\/p>\n
                 tremendous       advantage           in          disintering               many<\/p>\n
                 useful     information          and also materials                      which<\/p>\n
                 would     have     been cancelled.                  Success in             such<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (    19    )<\/p>\n
                interrogation           would      elude if        the       suspected<\/p>\n
                person       knows      that he is well            protected          and<\/p>\n
                insulated        by     a pre-arrest bail order                  during<\/p>\n
                the     time      he    is     interrogated.             Very        often<\/p>\n
                interrogation in such a condition would reduce<\/p>\n
                to     a    mere       ritual.     The       argument        that      the<\/p>\n
                custodial        interrogation           is fraught with              the<\/p>\n
                danger       of the person being subjected to third<\/p>\n
                decree       methods need not be countenanced, for,<\/p>\n
                such       an    argument       can     be     advanced         by     all<\/p>\n
                accused<\/p>\n
                to<\/p>\n
                       presume
\n                                in all criminal cases.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                      that responsible police
\n                                                                     The Court has<\/p>\n
                                                                              officers<\/p>\n
                would       conduct      themselves          in    a     responsible<\/p>\n
                manner       and that those entrusted with the task<\/p>\n
                of     disintering           offences     would        not     conduct<\/p>\n
                themselves as offenders.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     19.        The     Supreme Court in the case of                    Narinderjit<\/p>\n
     Singh Sahni and another V.                Union of India and others,<\/p>\n
     reported    in        A.I.R.       2001     Supreme       Court        3810      has<\/p>\n
     observed    that       if     accused         facing      a     charge        under<\/p>\n
     sections    406,       409, 420 and 120-B is                 ordinarily          not<\/p>\n
     entitled    to        invoke the provisions of section 438                         of<\/p>\n
     the   Criminal Procedure Code unless it is                         established<\/p>\n
     that such criminal accusation is not a bona fide one.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                              (   20    )\n\n\n\n\n     20.       In     the case of Ram Narain Poply Vs.                               Central\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n     Bureau    of Investigation with Pramod Kumar Monocha Vs.\n\n     Central    Bureau of Investigation with Vinayak                              Narayan\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     Deosthali, reported in A.I.R.                     2003 Supreme Court 2748\n\n<\/pre>\n
     in para 382 the Supreme Court has observed thus :-\n<\/p>\n
               382.         The     cause          of the community              deserves<\/p>\n
               better       treatment at the hands of the Court in<\/p>\n
               the     discharge of its judicial functions.                              The<\/p>\n
               Community<\/p>\n
               granta
\n                        ig  whose
\n                                  or       the State is not a persona<\/p>\n
                                           cause      may        be        treated
\n                                                                                         non<\/p>\n
                                                                                        with<\/p>\n
               disdain.       The entire community is aggrieved if<\/p>\n
               economic offenders who ruin the economy of the<\/p>\n
               State       are not brought to book.                        A murder      may<\/p>\n
               be     committed            in    the      heat        of     moment     upon<\/p>\n
               passions       being aroused.                An economic offences<\/p>\n
               is      committed            with       cool       calculation            and<\/p>\n
               deliberate          design          with     an eye          on   personal<\/p>\n
               profit       regardless           of the consequence to                   the<\/p>\n
               Community.              A    disregard for the interest                     of<\/p>\n
               the     community            can be manifested only at                    the<\/p>\n
               cost        of forfeiting the trust and faith of the<\/p>\n
               community          in the system to administer justice<\/p>\n
               in     an     even          handed manner          without        fear      of<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (     21        )<\/p>\n
               criticism          from the quarters which view                         white<\/p>\n
               collar        crimes with a permissive eye unmindful<\/p>\n
               of the damage done to the national Economy and<\/p>\n
               National          Interest,        as       was aptly           stated      in<\/p>\n
               State        of Gujrat V.          Mahanlal Jitamalji Porwal<\/p>\n
               and another, (A.I.R.                1987 1321).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     21.       While        considering       the scope of                anticipatory<\/p>\n
     bail   under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code                                   in<\/p>\n
     case   of    Adri       Dharan Das V.         State          of      West      Bengal<\/a><\/p>\n
     reported<\/p>\n
     earlier<\/p>\n
                 in 2005 A.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
                 Constitutional
\n                                            S.C.W.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                           Bench\n                                                           1013, relying on the\n\n                                                       judgment           in     case      of\n                       \n     Balachand       Jain V.       State of Madhya Prades reported in\n\n     A.I.R.      1977       S.C.    366, the Supreme Court in para                           7\n\n     has observed thus :-\n      \n   \n\n\n\n               The     power       exercisable under Section                      438      is\n\n               somewhat       extraordinary in character and it is\n\n               only     in       exceptional cases where                   it     appears\n\n\n\n\n\n               that     the person may be falsely implicated                               or\n\n               where     there are resonable grounds for holding\n\n               that     a     person accused of an offence                        is      not\n\n\n\n\n\n               likely       to     otherwise misuse his liberty                         then\n\n               power     is      to be exercised under Section                           438.\n\n               The     power       being     of important nature                    it     is\n\n\n\n\n                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>\n                                             (    22     )\n\n\n\n\n               entrusted          only          to    the    higher         echelons         of\n\n               judicial          forums i.e.            the Court of Session or\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n               the     High Court.               It is the power             exercisable\n\n               in     case        of    an           anticipated        accusation           of\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n               non-bailable             offence.            The object           which       is\n\n               sought        to     be achieved by Section 438 of                          the\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n               Code     is that the moment a person is                             arrested\n\n               if     he has already obtained an order from                                the\n\n               Court        of     Session or High Court, he shall                           be\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n               released          immediately            on bail         without         being\n                       \n               sent to jail.\n                      \n     22.       The     Supreme          Court         in the case           of     Himanshu\n\n     Chandravadan       Desai          &    ors.        Vs.        State        of      Gujrat\n\n     reported       in 2006 Cri.L.J.                 136 while considering bail\n      \n\n\n     application       of     the applicants therein                      has      observed\n   \n\n\n\n     thus :-\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
               Accused a Director of Bank and others involved<\/p>\n
               in    Bank        Scam       – Siphoned off funds                   of     Bank<\/p>\n
               worth        crores         by bogus loans             and       fictitious<\/p>\n
               letters       of        credit in name of their                     friends,<\/p>\n
               relatives          etc.          – Offence is very serious                      –\n<\/p>\n
               Evidence showing their prima facie involvement<\/p>\n
               in    offence           – Having regard to                 huge       amounts<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (      23   )<\/p>\n
              involved           there         is       danger         of      accused<\/p>\n
              absconding, if released on bail, or attempting<\/p>\n
              to      tamper       with         evidence       by      pressurizing<\/p>\n
              witnesses – Refusal of bail is proper.\n<\/p>\n
     23.      This Court in the case of State of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     V.     Pramod    Sahebrao Rohankar,<\/a> reported in                        2008       ALL<\/p>\n
     M.R.    (Cri.) 3476 has cancelled the anticipatory bail<\/p>\n
     granted to the applicants therein with observations in<\/p>\n
     para 12 that :-\n<\/p>\n
              12.
\n                       ig  In    the fact situation of the                     present<\/p>\n
              case,        there is sufficient material                     available<\/p>\n
              to     infer that the Directors joined hands with<\/p>\n
              Chairman          Rajendra Wani while sanctioning                       the<\/p>\n
              loan     cases on a single day, in the four                             lots<\/p>\n
              mentioned         above,        which      resulted         into        huge<\/p>\n
              financial         loss      to     the     Co-operative            Credit<\/p>\n
              Society.           Nobody        made any attempt to               verify<\/p>\n
              whether       the borrowers were eligible,                       whether<\/p>\n
              the proper procedure was followed, whether the<\/p>\n
              sufficient           securities           were       obtained            and<\/p>\n
              whether       such       huge      loans were likely               to     be<\/p>\n
              recovered.           Since       some of the borrowers                  are<\/p>\n
              not     in     existence at all and no                   security         is<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                       (    24     )<\/p>\n
               obtained from many of them, it is obvious that<\/p>\n
               recovery      of    the loans under the                  Maharashtra<\/p>\n
               Co-operative Societies Act would be difficult.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               The    learned Additional Sessions judge                          failed<\/p>\n
               to    consider these aspects of the matter.                              He<\/p>\n
               did    not record sufficient reasons and vaguely<\/p>\n
               observed        that       the         respondents         were        not<\/p>\n
               directly      involved in the financial                      misdeeds.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Needless      to    say,         the     impugned        orders        are<\/p>\n
               illegal, perverse and liable to be quashed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     24.       In    the\n                        ig   light    of above cited               judgments          and\n                      \n     observations      made therein by the Apex Court and                            this\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Court, I proceed to decide the present application for<\/p>\n
     anticipatory bail.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     .         The    Supreme      Court in Gurubaksh                  Singh       Sibba<\/p>\n
     cited Supra has observed that,”the larger interests of<\/p>\n
     the    public     or    the     State”       should       be       one    of     the<\/p>\n
     consideration         while granting bail.               The case in            hand<\/p>\n
     requires to be considered from the said angle.\n<\/p>\n
     25.       The    present applicant was the Director of the<\/p>\n
     Bank     for    the    period from          12.1.1993         to     22.2.2006.<\/p>\n
\n\n     During     the period in which the present applicant                             was\n\n\n\n\n                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>\n                                        (     25    )\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Director, he attended several meetings and in the said<\/p>\n
     meetings        resolutions      were passed to grant                   loans       to<\/p>\n
     various       persons.       According to the              complainant,             as<\/p>\n
     disclosed        in the said resolutions, taking decision to<\/p>\n
     grant     loan     to various persons was                 in      contravention<\/p>\n
     with     Bank Regulation, R.B.I.              Regulation, By-laws                   of<\/p>\n
     the     concerned     Bank,       the provisions             of     Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     State     Co-operative        Societies Act and other                     relevant<\/p>\n
     regulations         issued        from       time     to       time       by      the<\/p>\n
     Government.\n<\/p>\n
     26.        In<\/p>\n
                       the instant case, though the applicant                            or<\/p>\n
     his     relatives have not taken loan, however, the                              loan<\/p>\n
     is     sanctioned     to 14 borrowers during the                      period        in<\/p>\n
     which     the     present       applicant           was    Director.              The<\/p>\n
     following persons are the borrowers who have taken the<\/p>\n
     loan     during the period in which the present applicant<\/p>\n
     was     Director.        They     are        Swar     Hotel        Pvt.        Ltd.,<\/p>\n
     Rajendra Sidhappa Gavali, Uma Agencies, Avinash Dhondu<\/p>\n
     Shirode,         Rajendra       Sidhappa          Gavali,         Babi     Tukaram<\/p>\n
     Gavali,         Vaishali     Pramod          Gavali,       Sidhappa          Yamaji<\/p>\n
     Gavali,       Badrinarayan Balmukund Somani, Hotel Kanishkh<\/p>\n
     –     Alaka     Swar, Balasaheb Ukha              Choudhari,          Nandkishor<\/p>\n
     Ukha Choudhari, Dyaneshwar Ukha Choudhari.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        (     26    )<\/p>\n
     27.        It is pertinent to mention that loan proposals<\/p>\n
     are      sanctioned          either   to      the      relatives          of     the<\/p>\n
     Directors     or       to     other     borrowers.           The     loans       are<\/p>\n
     sanctioned        without      security or mortgage.                   There       is<\/p>\n
     violation     of       prescribed limit of granting                    loan      and<\/p>\n
     loan     proposals       are sanctioned beyond the                   prescribed<\/p>\n
     limit.     The loans are sanctioned for business purpose,<\/p>\n
     however,     there       is no proof in the file or record                         of<\/p>\n
     the bank that the borrowers who have borrowed the loan<\/p>\n
     for    business,        are carrying same business.                    The      loan<\/p>\n
     or<\/p>\n
     amount is either used for the benefit of the Directors<\/p>\n
            relatives or the borrowers.                 There is violation of<\/p>\n
     by-laws      of        the    Society        and    loan      proposals          are<\/p>\n
     sanctioned        in    utter disregard of the by-laws of                        the<\/p>\n
     Society.      The        applicant      had        attended        number          of<\/p>\n
     meetings     in        which decisions were taken to grant                       the<\/p>\n
     loan     contrary       to     the by-laws of          the      Bank,        R.B.I.\n<\/p>\n
     guidelines and Rules and Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
     28.        Though the applicant has not borrowed the loan<\/p>\n
     for    himself or for his relatives, still the applicant<\/p>\n
     cannot     escape from his responsibility\/ liability                             for<\/p>\n
     huge     loss sustained to the bank due to non payment of<\/p>\n
     loan     amounts by the borrowers.                 The present applicant<\/p>\n
     has not opposed any of the bogus loan cases during the<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>
\n                                               (    27    )<\/p>\n
     meetings         in        which        he      attended       and      signed         the<\/p>\n
     proceedings.                The         other       two      Directors            namely<\/p>\n
     Durgaprasad           Kaluram Daima and one other Director have<\/p>\n
     consistently           opposed          sanctioning of            loan       proposals<\/p>\n
     contrary        to the by-laws of the Bank or guidelines                                 of<\/p>\n
     the     R.B.I.        The present applicant should have opposed<\/p>\n
     such     proposals during the meetings, if he was                                 really<\/p>\n
     innocent.            Not     only that the applicant has                       attended<\/p>\n
     the     number of meetings and signed the proceedings                                    of<\/p>\n
     the     meetings.            The        argument of the           learned         A.P.P.\n<\/p>\n
     that<\/p>\n
              the present applicant is vicariously liable<\/p>\n
     all the bogus loans, sanctioned during his period, has
\n                                                                                            for<\/p>\n
     considerable           substance and said the contention cannot<\/p>\n
     be     rejected        at        outright.         If the arguments             of     the<\/p>\n
     learned         A.P.P.            are        carefully       perused,           various<\/p>\n
     instances        have been cited by the A.P.P.                          to show that<\/p>\n
     how     the     loans are advanced illegally to the                             persons<\/p>\n
     contrary        to     the        Rules and         Regulations          of     R.B.I.,<\/p>\n
     provisions           of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies                             Act<\/p>\n
     and Rules thereunder and relevant directions issued by<\/p>\n
     the Government from time to time.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     29.        It        would       not     be out of place to                refer       the\n\n     arguments        of        the     learned A.P.P.              that      the      larger\n\n     amount        of the bank have been systematically                             syphoned\n\n\n\n\n                                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:21 :::<\/span>\n                                            (    28   )\n\n\n\n\n     of,     there     is misappropriation to the tune                        of        Rs.27\n\n     crores.         The     Bank     is       put    to    loss       by       hatching\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n     systematic            plan\/conspiracy           by     the      Directors           and\n\n<\/pre>\n
     borrowers and as a result, the thousands of depositors<\/p>\n
     who     have put more than 37 crores in the Bank, are not<\/p>\n
     getting        their     deposits back due to non                   recovery         of<\/p>\n
     amount of Rs.           27 crores loan disbursed by the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
     30.        The        present applicant had attended number                          of<\/p>\n
     meetings        and signed the proceedings on those days                             on<\/p>\n
     which<\/p>\n
     been
\n               loan<\/p>\n
               sanctioned.<\/p>\n
\n                           \n                           proposals of as many as 14\n\n                                      Nothing         prevented\n                                                                       persons\n\n                                                                         the\n                                                                                         have\n\n                                                                                   present\n                          \n     applicant        from     opposing the said              resolutions            which\n\n<\/pre>\n
     were being passed contrary to the by-laws of the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
     Afterall        unless     the     Director           Board       approves           the<\/p>\n
     proposals        in     their meeting, no further steps can                          be<\/p>\n
     taken     by the Bank.           The main decision of                sanctioning<\/p>\n
     the     loan     proposals is by way of resolutions                           by     the<\/p>\n
     Director        Board in their meetings.                 Merely because the<\/p>\n
     applicant        has     not borrowed the loan himself                      or      his<\/p>\n
     relatives, prima facie, it cannot be concluded that he<\/p>\n
     is not responsible for the illegal disbursement of the<\/p>\n
     loan     amount contrary to the policy of the Bank.                                 The<\/p>\n
     total amount outstanding towards the borrowers is more<\/p>\n
     than     Rs.27        crores.      Thousands          of     depositors             have<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (    29     )<\/p>\n
     deposited        their         hard earned money in the bank.                        The<\/p>\n
     deposits,        according        to      the     figures       given       by       the<\/p>\n
     learned A.P.P., is more than 37 crores rupees and bank<\/p>\n
     is    not able to return the amount of depositors due to<\/p>\n
     the     fact        that more than 27 crores loan amount to                           be<\/p>\n
     recovered        from      the     Directors, their             relatives           and<\/p>\n
     other borrowers.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     31.        Since          the     application        is       only       for         the\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     anticipatory          bail       though         various     contentions              are\n\n     raised\n\n     would     not\n                           \n<\/pre>\n
                by the applicant and the learned A.P.P.\n<\/p>\n
                         be appropriate to comment in detail
\n                                                                                     ,<\/p>\n
                                                                                     about
\n                                                                                           it<\/p>\n
     the     merits of the case since the investigation is                                in<\/p>\n
     progress.           Suffice it to say that if the contents                            of<\/p>\n
     the     F.I.R.           are    perused         carefully,        prima          facie<\/p>\n
     conclusion can be drawn that there was systematic plan<\/p>\n
     hatched        by    the       Directors        to   grant       loan       amounts<\/p>\n
     illegally           to     various       borrowers         who      are        either<\/p>\n
     relatives        of the Directors or the Directors have some<\/p>\n
     interest        shared with them, causing heavy loss to                             the<\/p>\n
     Bank and depositors of the Bank.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     32.        The       contents      of the complaint are                  not        only\n\n     limited        to the fact that whether the Director himself\n\n     or    his relatives have taken loan, but the allegations\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:22 :::<\/span>\n                                         (     30    )\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     refers to the disbursement of huge amount towards loan<\/p>\n
     contrary to the by-laws of the bank, guidelines of the<\/p>\n
     R.B.I.         and    other relative provisions of                    Maharshtra<\/p>\n
     State Co-operative Societies Act and Rules thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
     Prima     facie       it can be said that Directors Board                         was<\/p>\n
     responsible           for    sanctioning            the    loan         proposals<\/p>\n
     contrary       to     the policy of the bank and                   they      cannot<\/p>\n
     escape        from their responsibility merely on the ground<\/p>\n
     that the particular director or his relatives have not<\/p>\n
     taken loan.          The persons who were Directors during the<\/p>\n
     period<\/p>\n
     meetings<\/p>\n
                   in which loan proposals are sanctioned in<\/p>\n
                    contrary       to    the       policy of        the      bank
\n                                                                                       the<\/p>\n
                                                                                       are<\/p>\n
     collectively          responsible        and no Director can                 escape<\/p>\n
     from the responsibility, unless he or she demonstrates<\/p>\n
     that     the     loan proposals were opposed by them in                           the<\/p>\n
     meetings       and     they protested against the sanction                          of<\/p>\n
     the loan proposals contrary to the policy of the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
     33.        The       applicant     though claims that he                   was      in<\/p>\n
     minority       group, nothing has been placed on record                             to<\/p>\n
     show     that the majority Directors have taken                           decision<\/p>\n
     and     the     present      applicant        was     in     minority.            The<\/p>\n
     present        applicant participated in meetings and signed<\/p>\n
     the     proceedings         and    did    not       protest        against        the<\/p>\n
     decisions        taken by the Directors Board granting                           huge<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (   31    )<\/p>\n
     amount        of     loan    to various borrowers,          some      of     the<\/p>\n
     Directors and their relatives.\n<\/p>\n
     34.       The        applicant    is a signatory to the               various<\/p>\n
     resolutions passed from time to time during the period<\/p>\n
     in     which       he was Director.        It can not       be     forgotten<\/p>\n
     that     thousands of depositors have deposited more than<\/p>\n
     Rs.37     crore        in the said Bank and total loan                on     the<\/p>\n
     date     of filing the complaint was to be recovered from<\/p>\n
     the     borrowers       to the extent of around Rs.28                 Crores.\n<\/p>\n
     If<\/p>\n
     which<\/p>\n
            the contents of the complaint and other<\/p>\n
               are made available, are perused carefully, same
\n                                                                        documents<\/p>\n
     would     demonstrate that loans have been sanctioned                          by<\/p>\n
     the     Board       in utter disregard to the by-laws                 of     the<\/p>\n
     Bank,     inasmuch          as the loans have been granted.                  The<\/p>\n
     loans     have        been sanctioned in excess of             permissible<\/p>\n
     limit under the by-laws.              It can also be seen that the<\/p>\n
     loans have been sanctioned without obtaining requisite<\/p>\n
     security.           It could also be seen from the record that<\/p>\n
     loans     have been sanctioned to close relatives of                         the<\/p>\n
     some of the Directors including present applicant.                             It<\/p>\n
     could     be        seen that there is prima facie evidence                    of<\/p>\n
     involvement of the present applicant in granting loans<\/p>\n
     in     huge        amounts    to various persons        including           some<\/p>\n
     Directors and relatives of some Directors.                       Though the<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (    32   )<\/p>\n
     applicant or his relatives have not borrowed the loan,<\/p>\n
     he     could not escape from his liability as a signatory<\/p>\n
     of     the various loan proposals during his period                            when<\/p>\n
     he     was Director and therefore, the applicant does not<\/p>\n
     deserve the leniency.\n<\/p>\n
     35.        In my considered view, if the judgments of the<\/p>\n
     Apex     Court        and this Court referred            hereinabove            are<\/p>\n
     considered           in the light of fact and situation of this<\/p>\n
     case,     the application for anticipatory bail                         deserves<\/p>\n
     to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     36.        In        the present case, thousands of                 depositors<\/p>\n
     are     deprived        from their hard earned money since                      the<\/p>\n
     bank is not able to repay there deposits to them.                               The<\/p>\n
     bank     has been duped by the Directors, their relatives<\/p>\n
     and     borrowers        without       having    any       regard        to     the<\/p>\n
     security        of     the bank or interest of the                bank.         The<\/p>\n
     applicant        was     Director for considerable period.                        In<\/p>\n
     case protection is granted to the applicant, there may<\/p>\n
     be     possibility        that     he    may try      to     influence          the<\/p>\n
     prosecution witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
     37.        Though       the learned cousel for the applicant’s<\/p>\n
     argument that some of the Directors and borrowers have<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                     (     33   )<\/p>\n
     been     released      on   bail and      therefore,        the     present<\/p>\n
     applicant       may    be released on bail on the              ground        of<\/p>\n
     parity,        deserves to be rejected.        While granting bail<\/p>\n
     each     case     may be considered on its own              facts.         The<\/p>\n
     other     two     Directors to whom bail is granted by                    this<\/p>\n
     Court,     their       case stands on different footings.                    In<\/p>\n
     those cases the learned counsel appearing for them has<\/p>\n
     demonstrated on the basis of the documents produced on<\/p>\n
     record     that they consistently opposed the resolutions<\/p>\n
     in     which decisions were taken to grant loan                    contrary<\/p>\n
     to<\/p>\n
     opposed<\/p>\n
            policy of the Bank.         The present applicant has not<\/p>\n
                    any loan proposal during the meeting in which<\/p>\n
     he was present and signed the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     38.       For      all these reasons stated hereinabove, the<\/p>\n
     application        for anticipatory bail is rejected.                     Rule<\/p>\n
     is discharged.\n<\/p>\n
     .         It     is made clear that observations made                     here<\/p>\n
     in     above     are    restricted     only for     the      purpose         of<\/p>\n
     deciding the present application.\n<\/p>\n
                                                [ S.S.SHINDE, J.]<\/p>\n
     ssc\/criapln3971.08<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:22 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009 Bench: S. S. Shinde IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3971 OF 2008 Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade, Age 53 yrs., Occu. Business, R\/o. Phule Colony, Kargaon Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ..Applicant. VERSUS 1. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201819","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-07T00:56:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-07T00:56:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4746,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-07T00:56:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-07T00:56:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-07T00:56:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009"},"wordCount":4746,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009","name":"Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-07T00:56:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakesh-ramchandra-kothavade-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prakesh Ramchandra Kothavade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201819","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201819"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201819\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201819"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201819"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201819"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}