Sunil Sahebrao Ubale vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 6337 Bom

 Shridhar Sutar                              1                                26-ABA-1293.17.doc


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1293 OF 2017

 Sunil Sahebrao Ubale                                      ...  Applicant
       Versus
 State of Maharashtra                                      ... Respondent

                                 WITH
                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 764 OF 2017
                          (FOR INTERVENTION)

 Rangnath Genba Mehtre                                     ... Applicant
 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

 Sunil Sahebrao Ubale                                      ... Applicant
       Versus
 The State of Maharashtra                                  ... Respondent

                                .....
 Mr. Uday P. Warunjkar for the Applicant.
 Mr. Shailesh D. Chavan for Intervenor.
 Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.
                                .....


                                CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J.

                                 DATE    : 16th AUGUST, 2017

 P. C. :

1. Criminal Application No. 1293 of 2017 is filed for

anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 202 of 2017 registered with Baramati

City Police Station for offences punishable under sections 420,

406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                                                                 1 of 5





  Shridhar Sutar                              2                               26-ABA-1293.17.doc



 2.          Both sides are heard.

3. The papers of investigation were made available for perusal

of this Court.

4. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one

Rangnath Gyanba Mehetre, who is an agriculturist, having land

admeasuring 4 acres 10 gunthas. He wanted to improve the yield

by improving irrigation system. He approached one Tulshiram

Shinde, who is owner of a concern and who takes work of such

nature on contract basis. Said Shinde and main accused

represented, that they knew the officers of Pubjab National Bank

who can get the loan sanctioned from Punjab National Bank for

such scheme. He took the complainant first to one officer Sunil

Ubale- the present applicant.

4. Allegations are made against the present applicant that as

per his advice, the record was collected and the quotation of

Tulshiram Shinde was used. Accused Shinde was also there and

he also informed that he was in a position to see that the loan is

sanctioned by Punjab National Bank as he knows the officers

2 of 5

Shridhar Sutar 3 26-ABA-1293.17.doc

working there. Due to this representation made by Tulshiram

Shinde, his cousin and the present applicant, necessary record was

supplied by the complainant. The loan amount was to be paid to

Shinde for execution of the work. The loan of Rs. 29.70 lakhs was

sanctioned.

5. It is the case of the complainant that no work was done in

his field and the amount of Rs. 26.57 lakh was given by the bank

to Mr. Tulshiram Shinde. It is contended that when the loan was

sanctioned in November-2015, even in the year 2017, no work

was started and when he made enquiry, he was told that Shinde

may not execute the work.

6. Due to instructions given by the complainant, remaining

amount of Rs. 3 lakh was not disbursed in favour of Mr. Shinde,

but he lost the amount of Rs. 26.57 lakh and it is his allegation

that the amount was released in favour of Tulshiram Shinde as the

bank officers had joined with Tulshiram Shinde.

7. The submission made was that by using the said modus

operandi, loan was sanctioned by the bank to 8 farmers and the

amount of Rs. 1.5 crore was given to aforesaid Mr. Shinde.

                                                                                   3 of 5





  Shridhar Sutar                                4                                26-ABA-1293.17.doc

Mr.Shinde did not execute any work and all these farmers have

made complaints to the bank.

8. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that bank

employees are involved in making proposal for the loan. He

submits that he only prepared the proposal, but the amount was

disbursed during tenure of his successor.

9. Learned APP submits that out of 8 transactions, in 2

transactions the amount was disbursed during tenure of the

present applicant. He submits that police are investigating all the

8 cases in the present crime and custodial interrogation of the

present applicant is necessary.

10. As per the procedure, the entire amount of loan is not to be

disbursed and the amount is to be disbursed in stages after

considering the progress of the scheme. It can be said that the

bank officers did not verify the things and without verification the

amount was given to Mr.Shinde. This must have been done for a

consideration and that can be ascertained only through custodial

interrogation. Thus, the farmers are deceived by using such modus

operandi.

                                                                                   4 of 5





  Shridhar Sutar                           5                               26-ABA-1293.17.doc

11. This Court holds that discretion cannot be used in favour of

the present applicant. In the result, the application stands

rejected.

12. In view of above, Criminal Application No. 764 of 2017 does

not survive and the same is disposed of.

(T. V. NALAWADE, J.)

5 of 5