Sushant Siddharth Savedekar v. The State Of Maharashtra

2024:BHC-AUG:24774 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 960 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1299 OF 2024 SUSHANT SIDDHARTH SAVEDEKAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ....

Mr M. S. Bansode, Advocate for Applicant Mr P. K. Lakhotiya, A.P.P. for Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 11th October, 2024 PER COURT :- 1.

Heard.

2.

Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.0216 of 2024, registered with Udgir Police Station, Dist. Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, lodged report against present applicant by alleging that, while applicant was working as the Branch Manager during the period from 23/01/2018 to 30/01/2022, without verifying the documents

(2) and without obtaining necessary record, the proposal for the loan was forwarded by him. It is further alleged that the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was approved as a loan, was used by applicant himself. With these allegations, report came to be lodged against him.

4.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant was not authorized to sanction loan beyond Rs.50,000/- and in the present case, there is approval granted by the District Cell to the said proposal. It is his submission that applicant cannot be held responsible in the said approval of the loan. 5.

Learned APP opposed the application by contending that, apart from present first information report, there is other report lodged against present applicant. It is his submission that there is misappropriation of the amounts and hence, it is not fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

6.

Though there is allegation against applicant in respect of not verifying the documents for the purpose of approval of loan, record indicates that loan was not sanctioned by applicant

(3) but by the District Cell. If it is true, the applicant cannot be held responsible for sanctioning of the said loan. If the loan was sanctioned by the competent authority, unless otherwise it is established that it has to be accepted that the loan was in order, and hence, it was sanctioned. Hence, this is fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order :-

ORDER

(i) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with Crime No.0216 of 2024, registered with Udgir Police Station, Dist. Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount.

(ii) He shall attend the concerned police station once in a week.

(iii) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

(4) (iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(v) He is further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. (vi) Learned APP to communicate this order to the concerned Investigating Officer.

(R. M. JOSHI) Judge sjk