Anup Chaubey v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1736 OF 2015 Mr. Anup Chaubey ..Applicant v/s.

The State of Maharashtra.

..Respondents Mr. K.S.Patil for the Applicant Mrs.Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : NOVEMBER 18, 2015.

P.C.

1.

The applicant herein has filed application for anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in Crime No.93 of 2015 for the offence under Setion 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

Heard Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the applicant. He submits that the applicant is not involved in commission of the crime. He has submitted that the complainant has not attributed any specific

role to the accused in commission of the crime. Whereas, the learned APP submitted that the FIR as well as the statements recorded in the course of the investigation prima facie reveal that the applicant was involved in commission of the offence. 3.

I have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties. The FIR lodged by the Manager of Union Bank of India reveals that the earlier Manager Shri Dnyaneshwar Jagtap in collusion with others had prepared false and fabricated documents and disbursed loan to various people and had thereby caused loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.8,71,76,468/-. The FIR specifically states that the applicnt herein was involved in assisting the Manager Dnyaneshwar Jagtap. The said Manager and the applicant herein had together used the bank computer system and had illegally processed the loan application and caused loss to the bank. I have also perused the statements of the witnesses recorded in the course of the investigation. The witnesses have also attributed specific role to the applicant. The material so far collected, therefore, prima facie reveals that the applicant herein

is involved in the commission of the said crime. The offence is of serious nature, involving public money. The gravity of the offence dis-entitles the applicant from seeking anticipatory bail. The offence is of serious nature and requires thorough investigation, including custodial interrogation. Under the circumstances, the application for bail is hereby dismissed.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)