IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

BELAGAVI, AT: BELAGAVI.

DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JUNE, 2020.

PRESENT
C.P! Rib

I copy lasuod by the District 'owe

SHRI R.J. SATISH SINGH,
B.com, LL.M.,
Ii3 0.,tag awl Nature of Document
Pr!. Sessions Judge, Belagavi.
Ncant.c13.
CRTMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.525/2020.

PETITIONERS:
Shri Kiran Dhondopant Thakur,
Age: 67 years, Occ: Business,
Chairman, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
R/o: 180, Guruwarpeth, Tilakwadi,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
Dr. Damodar Pandurang Wagle,
Age: 69 years, Occ: Business,
Vice-Chairman, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
Rio: Omkar Apartment, Budhwarpeth, Tilakwadi,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
Shri Prasad KiranThakur,
Age: 39 years, Occ: Business,
Director, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
R/o: 180, Guruwarpeth, Tilakwadi,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
Shri Gajanan Nagappa Dhamanekar,
Age: 63 years, Occ: Business,
Director, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
Rio: Krish Nest Building, Mangalawarpeth, Tilakwadi,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
 Cri.Misc No.525/2020
2

Shri Pandhari Pundalik Parab,

Age: 51 years, Occ: Business,
Director, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
Rio: 106/1 0-A, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Tilakwadi,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
Shri Subodh Santosh Gawade,
Age: 51 years, Occ: Business,
Director, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
Rio: 336/B, "Santosh Niwas" Roy Road, Tilakwadi,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
Shri Ajit Appasaheb Garagatti,
Age: 68 years, Occ: Business,
Director, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
Rio: 121, Hosur Math Galli, Shahapur,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
Shri Prabhakar Narayan Patkar,
Age: 77 years, Occ: Business,
Director, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
Rio: House No.149, Budhuwarpeth, Tilakwadi,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
Shri Vithal Sadashiv Prabhu,
Age: 66 years, Occ: Business,
Director, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
Rio: F/1, 413 Gajshanti Apts, Savarkar Road,
Tilakwadi, Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
Shri Shevantilal Chaturdas Shah,
Age: 83 years, Occ: Business,
Director, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
Rio: 111, "Chaturmani" Mangalwarpeth, Tilakwadi,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
 Cr.Misc.No.525/2020
-3—
Shri Anil Baburao Choudhari,
Age: 67 years, Occ: Business,
Director, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
R/o: 212, Tahashildar Galli, Belagavi,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
Mrs. Sai Thakur Bijalani,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Business,
Director, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
Rio: 180, Guruwarpeth, Tilakwadi,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
Mrs. Gayatri Kakatkar,
Age: 56 years, Occ: Housewife,
Director, Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
Rio: Flat No.A-2, 2nd Floor,
Sunshine Apartment, Maratha Colony, Tilakwadi,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
Shri Abhijit Avinash Dixit,
Age: 45 years, Occ: Service,
C.E.O., Lokamanya Multipurpose
Co-op Society Ltd, Belagavi,
Rio: Rani Channamma Nagar, Tilakwadi,
Taluk: Belagavi, District: Belagavi.
,(By Shriyuths S.R. Mundargi and
P.K. Bothe, Advocates)
•

-Versus-
RESPONDENT:
1) State of Karnataka,
Through CEN Police, Belagavi,
(By Public Prosecutor, Belagavi)

ORDER

is is a petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal

 Cri.Misc No.525/2020
4

Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners

in Crime No.07/2020 of CEN Police, Belagavi Station, which is

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, and

420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 9 of K.P.I.D. Act, 2004.

The factual scenario of this case is as under:

2. One G.M. Patil, Joint Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, Belagavi Region is the complainant. It is is stated in the

complaint that petitioners were running financial institution

Lokamanya Co-operative Society and holding various responsible

positions in the said society like chairman, secretary, members etc.

It is alleged that they have disbursed huge loans to their kiths and

kins (i) accepting same set of sureties and property for multiple

loan transactions, (ii) without making entry regarding encumbrance

in the property records while granting mortgage loan, (iii) failed to

recover principle and interest regularly. As a result of these

infirmities, there is bad debt to the tune of Rs.1433.79 crores. Thus,

the society acted against the interest of depositors of the society by

misutilizing the deposit money. Hence, complainant lodged

A14

complaint. Thereupon, top noted crime has been registered. Pres

 Cr.Misc.No.525/2020
-5—

petitioners being named in the FIR, apprehending their arrest, have

come up with this petition.

3. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the

petitioners are innocent, they have not committed any offences as

alleged by the complainant and they have been falsely implicated in

this case. The offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with

death or imprisonment for life. There are no prima facie materials

against the petitioners for commission of offences alleged.

Petitioners are respectable citizens in the society. If the petitioners

are arrested and put in a lock up, they and their family members

will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss and their

reputation will be spoiled in the society. The petitioners are the

permanent residents of the addresses shown in the petition, having

both movable and immovable properties. Further, the counsel for

the petitioners contended that if the petitioners are let on bail, they

will not tamper or attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses

and petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by the

court and they are ready and willing to furnish adequate surety to

the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, it is prayed to allow the

petition and grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

0
%;").
 Cri.Misc No.525/2020
6

The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections inter

alia reiterating the contents of the complaint and contended that at

this stage, there are prima facie materials against the petitioners for

commission of offences. The petitioners are absconding since the

date of complaint. The investigation is in progress. At this stage, if

the bail is granted to the petitioners, they may tamper with the

prosecution witnesses, they may again abscond and they may

hamper investigation and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled

for bail. Hence, he opposed the bail petition.

Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the entire

records.
The only point that arises for my consideration is that:

"Whether the petitioners are

entitled for anticipatory bail?"

7 I answer this point in the negative for the following:

REASONS

8. The case of the prosecution is that petitioners who

were running Lokamanya Multistate Co-operative Society have

disbursed huge loans in favour of their kiths and kins without

proper security which resulted in bad debt of Rs.1433.79 C

 Cr.Misc.No.525/2020
-7—

and thereby they have failed to guard interest of depositors. Police

registered the case.

9. It is well-settled law that the Court would grant or

refuse anticipatory bail after taking into consideration the following

factors, namely:

The nature and gravity of the accusation.

The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as

to whether the accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of
any cognizable offence.
The possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice,
and
Whether the accusation has been made with the object
of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him
so arrested.

It is also well settled law that mere allegation of a non-bailable

offence against a person and his apprehension that he would be

arrested is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. The grant of

anticipatory bail is an exceptional power and should be exercised

only in exceptional cases and not in general cases.

10. Keeping in mind the above principles of law, let me

osTR! examine the case on hand.
\
cs,
a
I
 Cri.Misc No.525/2020
8

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

the petitioners have not committed any offences as alleged by the

prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Per

contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail to

the petitioners.

I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the

arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the entire records.

Records reveal that the respondent police registered a case against

the petitioners for the afore said offences. The offences alleged are

serious in nature punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years.

Anyhow, it is to be borne in mind that the amount involved in the

scam is more than 1433.79 crores and investigation is still in

progress. Petitioner is still absconding. In the event of granting

anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of the petitioners

tampering with the prosecution witnesses and evidence. Therefore,

in my considered view, at this stage, petitioners are not entitled for

grant of anticipatory bail. Under the circumstances, I answer the

above point in the negative.

;
16z

* BEi-g`
 Cr.Misc.No.525/2020
-9-
3. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby

rejected.

(Directly dictated to the Judgment Writer/Stenographer on

computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court
on this 10th day of June, 2020)

/!L-
(R.J. SAT-ISH SI GH)
; Y:*
2

Principal Sessions Judge,

Belagavi.
mgc/yss*

TRUE COP?

‘ntbolcatr,t
 Court Fees Rs: _ q`'" .7
;urgent Fees Ps:
ilotai Fees Rs 0 t —4

4. °PI/ APVIIPtion I e 020

2. Copy ,

3.Copy7,71,,7? •

Applic.:ef. ;.. %

Appiican'l

G. Copy ready on to j6t

7 Copy det;v-en:;•.01 or, to ( do
a. Copy by
.
CA.
1. Prepared C't (
t r, t:vei t
a rt