Sadanand Manekar (Retd) vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants. The Court noted that the FIR itself indicated that a substantial amount (Rs. 4,16,522) was spent for the Society's purposes. While some vouchers were misplaced, leading to Rs. 32,906 being unaccounted for, the FIR did not allege misappropriation of this specific amount by the applicants. The Court acknowledged the applicants as senior citizens who had devoted their time to the Society's affairs, had cooperated with the investigation, and that the documents were already in police custody. Therefore, custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary. The principle derived is that in cases involving alleged financial irregularities within cooperative societies, where substantial amounts are demonstrably used for the society's benefit, the applicants have cooperated with the investigation, and documents are secured, anticipatory bail can be granted, especially considering the applicants' age and contribution.

Facts

The applicants, members of the Sachin Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. committee between April 2017 and October 2017, are seeking anticipatory bail. An FIR was lodged by a statutory auditor alleging misappropriation of approximately Rs. 5,62,000 from the Society's funds. The auditor conducted an audit for the period 2017-2018. The FIR states that Rs. 4,16,522 was spent on Society-related works, Rs. 32,906 was spent via 17 vouchers that are now missing, and Rs. 1,66,850 was paid to a contractor named Rajanna. The cash withdrawals were allegedly made frequently for amounts of Rs. 1,500 and above, instead of through cheques. The applicants contend that the funds were utilized for Society purposes, including building maintenance, and that they have cooperated with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 303 of 2023 registered under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 146 and 147 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants' counsel argued that there was no misappropriation of funds, and the withdrawn amounts were utilized for the Society's purposes, specifically for repairs and maintenance of the buildings. They highlighted that the applicants are senior citizens who have dedicated their time to the Society's benefit, have cooperated with the investigation, and that all relevant documents are already with the Investigating Officer, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. Revenue/State's Arguments: The intervener, representing the informant, opposed the application, asserting that the FIR and audit report clearly indicate irregularities and misuse of funds, citing points like demand from the Income Tax Department, GST payments, cash withdrawals without vouchers, payments to Rajanna, and penalties for not filing Income Tax returns, all of which allegedly caused financial loss to the Society. The State's APP, on instructions, stated that the applicants had attended the investigation office and cooperated, and that documents were in possession of the agency.