Uday Rangnathrao Kulkarni v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2025:BHC-AUG:3993
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 956 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1888 OF 2024 Uday Rangnathrao Kulkarni
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Salunke Vasant Digambarrao APP for Respondents-State: Mr. A.A.A.Khan ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Dated : February 12, 2025.
PER COURT :- 1.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
2.
The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No.261/2023, dated 17/12/2019, registered at Vedantnagar Police Station, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 3 and 4 of MPID Act.
3.
This Court, by order dated 29/10/2024, granted interim protection to the applicant based on the reasons and submissions set out in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6, as follows : - "4.
It is contended that applicant was appointed as Chief Executive Officer for limited duration from 01.04.2022 to 31.05.2022. He had no role to play in disbursing the loan. He is not signatory to the resolutions passed on 13.02.2022 or 07.05.2022. 5.
Learned A. P. P. opposes the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant. He would submit that custodial interrogation is necessary. Being Chief Executive Officer, the applicant is also 1 of
responsible and in collusion with co-accused an offence has been committed.
6.
The applicant was working as a Chief Executive Officer from 01.04.2022 to 31.05.2022. Thereafter he resigned. I have gone through the minutes of resolutions dated 13.02.2022 and 07.05.2022. There is no signature of the applicant over the minutes of meeting. No role can be attributed from the minutes of the meeting. His mere presence would not attribute anything against him. Prima facie considering limited role, I am inclined to grant interim protection".
4.
The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 29/10/2024 and subsequently on 21/01/2025, the applicant attended the police station. He further submits that the applicant served as the Chief Executive Officer from 01/10/2021 to 31/01/2022 and did not disburse any home loans during his tenure. The applicant was not part of the body responsible for loan disbursement.
5.
The learned Counsel also contends that the co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail. More particularly, since the coaccused has cooperated with the investigation, and the applicant has done the same, bail ought to be granted to him as well. 6.
The learned APP has not disputed the factual aspect regarding the grant of anticipatory bail to the co-accused. As for the applicant's 2 of
cooperation in the investigation, it is submitted that he has cooperated, and no grievance has been raised by the learned APP in this regard. 7.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the interim protection granted to the applicant is confirmed.
8.
In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following terms : - i] In the event the applicant is arrested in connection with FIR FIR No.261/2023, dated 17/12/2019, registered at Vedantnagar Police Station, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 3 and 4 of MPID Act, he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii] The applicant shall attend the police station as and when called by the police.
iii] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. He shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case. iv] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court. 9.
In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified 3 of
in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled. 10.
It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove. 11.
The application stands disposed of.
( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) vj gawade/-.
4 of