Dnyanendu Prakash Warma vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 1516 Bom

                                                        916ABA1483.19
                                        1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

        916 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1483 OF 2019

                          DNYANENDU PRAKASH WARMA
                                    VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                     Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S.S. Jadhav.
                      APP for Respondent : Mr. V.M. Kagne.

                                            CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATED : 22.01.2021

PER COURT :

The applicant who happens to be the accused No. 2 in Crime

No. 231/2019, registered with Navapur Police Station, District

Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409,

420, 468, 469, 470 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is

seeking bail in the event of his arrest.

2. Briefly stated the allegations as can be appreciated from the

charge sheet are to the effect the applicant was a Branch Manager

with the Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Navapur. The informant and

two other persons had applied for term loan for erecting poly house

in their respective lands. It is averred that the main accused had

taken all of them to the concerned bank. The term loans were

sanctioned. Those were to be disbursed depending upon the stage of

916ABA1483.19

erection of the poly houses. The EMIs were to start from a specified

date. In spite of the fact that the work of the poly houses was not

completed by the main accused, the applicant allowed disbursement

of the loan amount to him causing wrongful loss to the informant and

the other two borrowers. It is alleged that in respect of the informant

though the work was completed to the extent of 90 % the applicant

certified it to be complete and allowed the entire loan except the

paltry sum of Rs. 50,000/- to be disbursed.

3. It is also alleged in respect of the other two borrowers the work

was completed only to the extent of 17% and 65% and still major

portion of the loan amount was disbursed. It is thus alleged that the

applicant hand in gloves with the main accused has committed the

offence mentioned above.

4. The learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that the

applicant is only a Manager of the Bank. It was his first posting.

Though there is certain amount of negligence attributable, it does not

go to the extent of attributing him with culpability. Being a Manager

he was not supposed to look after the entire affairs. There is a

hierarchy of employees to help him in discharging the duties. It is not

that the works were not at all carried out. As far as the informant is

concerned it was a little margin of 10%. It could be an error of

916ABA1483.19

judgment. So far as the other two borrowers are concerned, it is not

that the whole amount was disbursed to the main accused. Learned

Advocate, on instructions, also submits that even the applicant was

proceeded against departmentlly but has been exonerated. It would,

therefore, be farfetched to hold the applicant guilty of the crime being

charged against him.

5. Lastly the learned Advocate would also point out that in fact

the grievance of the informant and the other borrowers is against the

main accused who failed to complete the work of erection of the poly

houses. Even the FIR recites about he having undertaken to complete

the work and they were satisfied with such an undertaking. It is in

view of such state of affairs, when the applicant has already been

protected by way of ad interim relief for last more than a year and

since he is in the employment as a the Branch Manager of the bank

and unlikely to jump the bail, the ad interim protection may be

confirmed.

6. Learned APP opposes the application. He submits that it is a

serious offence. There is every reason to believe and suspect

involvement of the applicant in commission of the crime in collusion

with the main accused. Being a Branch manager it was his

responsibility to disburse the loan amount proportionate to the work

916ABA1483.19

that was completed. Giving a complete go-by to such a procedure, he

has readily disbursed the loan. There is material to reveal that the

work of erection of poly house was only completed partly in respect

of all the three borrowers still huge amount was disbursed.

Considering the modus operandi custodial interrogation of the

applicant is necessary. The application be rejected.

7. Learned APP would also point out that as regards the

informant, the certificate issued by the applicant regarding

completion of the work is patently false when the work was

completed only to the extent of 90 %. In respect of the other two

borrowers, he even did not bother to visit the spot and to personally

verify the work before approving such disbursement to the main

accused. This smacks of sharing of common intention by the two.

The application be rejected.

8. I have carefully gone through the papers and considered the

rival submissions.

9. Obviously, it is the main accused who even without completing

the work of erection of the poly houses could manage to derive a

wrongful gain.

10. The question is as to if even the applicant can be roped in and

916ABA1483.19

whether there is enough material to reveal his complicity. As can be

understood, he was the Manager of the bank. Term loans were

sanctioned to the informant and other two borrowers. Repayment

was to start from a specific date. The work was admittedly not

complete and still the loan amounts were disbursed to the main

accused. As can be seen from the report of the valuer, the work in

respect of the informant and other two borrowers was completed to

the extent of 90%, 17% and 65%. According to the valuation report,

Rs. 95,50,000/- were disbursed in total when percentage wise the

work was completed only to the extent of worth Rs. 73,63,800/- and

thus in aggregate the work to the tune of Rs. 21,86,200/- was still

incomplete. Without indulging into any further calculations suffice to

observe that the loan amount was disbursed not in proportion to the

work that was completed.

11. However, whether simply on the basis of these facts and

circumstances it would be sufficient to draw an inference as to the

complicity of the applicant is indeed a matter which deserves

consideration.

12. Obviously, it does appear to be a matter of negligence on the

part of the applicant in discharging his duties. However, there has to

be something to demonstrate which would enable us to travel beyond

916ABA1483.19

such suspicion. At this juncture, though the charge sheet has been

filed, except these aforementioned circumstances there is no material

to indicate even prima facie that the applicant was having some

motive and had conspired with the main accused in disbursing the

loans. Mere negligence would not be sufficient to implicate a person

for committing an offence of the kind being charged against the

applicant. The material requisite to take the case further is

conspicuously missing.

13. Considering all these aspects, the ad interim bail granted to the

applicant deserves to be confirmed. The application is allowed. The

ad interim relief granted by the order dated 25.11.2019 stands

confirmed with the same terms and conditions.

( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )

S.P.C.