1. As all these applications are preferred by common applicant - accused with respect to different similar criminal complaint/cases filed against him, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. All these applications are filed by the applicant – original accused named Devendraprasad Bhagwanji Pandya - the then Managing Director and Chief Executive officer (“CEO” for convenience) of Madhavpura Mercantile Co- operative Bank Limited, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) for releasing him on bail in connection with the complaints/cases being M.Case Nos.10/05, 7/05, 6/05, 3/05, 2/05 of Gandhinagar Zone Police Station, C.R.Nos.I-42 of 2004 and 8 of 2005, of Gandhinagar Zone Police Station, M.Case Nos.5/05, 4/05, and 8 of 2005 of Gandhinagar Zone Police Station for the offences punishable under various sections of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant being the Managing Director and C.E.O. of Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited, in connivance with other accused indulged in large scale irregularities in sanctioning loans of crores of rupees leaving aside the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and creating forged documents and consequently the aforesaid bank failed and gone into liquidation affecting large number of small depositors and other small co-operative banks and thereby committed offences as alleged, for which different complaints came to be lodged with CID Crime, Gandhinagar Zone Police Station, Prevention of Economic Offences, Gandhinagar, Madhupura Police Station and Ellisbridge Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The applicant has been arrested in connection with the aforesaid criminal cases/complaints and is in judicial custody and therefore, the applicant submitted various applications for releasing him on bail in connection with the aforesaid Criminal Cases/complaints. However, all the applications were rejected and hence the applicant has preferred all these applications u/S.439 of the CrPC for releasing him on bail. That considering the fact that the cases were prior to 2006, time likely to be consumed for completion of the aforesaid cases pending against the applicant and other co-accused.
4. Shri K.B.Anandjiwala, learned counsel appearing with Shri Rushabh Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant – accused has vehemently submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since long as undertrial prisoner. It is submitted that the trial is not likely to be concluded within the reasonable period and in near future. It is submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody as undertrial prisoner and for not a single day he has come out of the jail. It is submitted that applicant is aged 73 years and in most of the cases even charge has not been framed. It is further submitted that all the offences are magistrate triable offences wherein maximum sentence awardable is three years. It is further submitted that though he is shown as arrested in these cases in 2011, he is in fact in jail since the year 2003. It is therefore requested consider the prayer of the applicant to release him on bail on any condition that may be imposed by this Court.
5. It is further submitted that present applicant has been granted bail in 57 of the cases by the Court (Coram: M.R.Shah, J.) vide common C.A.V. order dated 8-11-2011 passed in Cri.Misc.Appln.Nos.2145 to 2164 of 2011 with Cri.Misc.Appln.Nos.2166 to 2167 of 2011 with Cri.Misc.Appln.Nos.2167 to 2203 of 2011. It is submitted that accused has fully cooperated at all times and has with folded hands requested the Courts below to take up the cases and decide the same as early as possible. It is submitted that in fact the applicant approached this Court by submitting Special Criminal Application No.524/2010 requesting for early disposal of the trials and to conduct trial on day to day basis and within stipulated time. Therefore, it is submitted that when the delay is not attributed to the applicant – accused at all and he is in judicial custody as under trial prisoner since many years and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future despite the direction issued by this Court, it is requested to consider the case of the applicant for releasing him on bail on any condition that may be imposed by this Court.
6. All these applications are opposed by Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutors. It is submitted that the applicant has been involved in series of offences which led to the closure of not only the Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. but also affected large number of small depositors and other small cooperative banks. It is submitted that the applicant at the relevant time was holding the key post of Managing Director and C.E.O. and he along with the Chairman and other Directors and office bearers of the Bank, indulged into large scale irregularities in sanctioning loans running into crores of rupees, leaving aside the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and even the allegations are that the securities/documents were got up and forged, as a result of which the Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. failed and gone into liquidation affecting large number of small depositors and other small cooperative banks and therefore, it is submitted that looking to the role attributed to the applicant, the applicant is not required to be released on bail. It is submitted that the prosecution is not responsible for the delay and therefore, such a benefit of delay may not be given to the applicant – accused who has committed series of offences because of whom the Bank has gone into liquidation and large number of small depositors and even other Banks have been affected and most of the small depositors have been ruined for no fault of them. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present applications. It is submitted that as such the Court has already passed an order directing the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to conclude the trials at the earliest and within stipulated time. Therefore, it is submitted that appropriate further directions can be issued with a view to see that the trials are concluded at the earliest.
7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the allegations against the applicant who was at the relevant time the Managing Director of Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. are for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. It is also required to be noted that applicant is the main accused as one another main co-accused Chairman has expired. It is also required to be noted that at the relevant time the applicant was holding key post of Managing Director and C.E.O. of the Bank and it is alleged that he along with the Chairman and other Directors and office bearers of the Bank, indulged into large scale irregularities in sanctioning loans, turning into crores of rupees, leaving aside the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and even the allegations are that securities/documents were got up and forged, as a result of which the Bank failed and gone into liquidation affecting large number of small depositors and other small cooperative banks.
8. It appears that because of various cases against the applicant, the trial is not likely to be concluded within the near future. It is to be noted that as such the applicant is in jail since last many years in different cases and he is in judicial custody for the present offence from 2011 onwards. Therefore, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail as undertrial prisoner for the aforesaid period and considering the maximum punishment which can be imposed for the offences alleged against the applicant coupled with the fact that he was released on bail by this Court (Coram: M.R.Shah,J.) in 57 cases vide common C.A.V. order dated 8-11-2011 passed in Cri.Misc.Appln.Nos.2145 to 2164 of 2011 with Cri.Misc.Appln.Nos.2166 to 2167 of 2011 with Cri.Misc.Appln.Nos.2167 to 2203 of 2011, the request of the applicant for releasing him on bail deserves consideration. It is to be noted that applicant is at present facing the criminal trial in 59 cases of similar nature.
9. It is also required to be noted that the applicant is in custody as an undertrial prisoner since 2003 in different offences and thereafter in present cases he is shown to be arrested since 2011 and hence, there are no chances of completing the trial in near future. However, the fact remains that he is in jail since 2003 and it is reported that for not a single day he has come out of the jail. It is reported that he is aged 73 years. Considering the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the case, the cases of the applicant for releasing him on bail deserve consideration on imposing suitable conditions.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these applications are allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with complaints/cases being M.Case Nos.10/05, 7/05, 6/05, 3/05 and 2/05 of Gandhinagar Zone Police Station, C.R.Nos.I-42 of 2004 and 8 of 2005 of Gandhinagar Zone Police Station, M.Case Nos.5/05, 4/05, and 8 of 2005 of Gandhinagar Zone Police Station on his executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) in each case with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to the conditions that he shall :
(a) not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty:
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution:
(c) maintain law and order;
(d) mark his presence before concerned Police Station on 2nd Sunday of every English calendar month between 9.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. till the respective trials are concluded.
(e) not leave the State of Gujarat without the prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;
(f) furnish the address of his residence at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
(g) surrender his passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week.
11. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the learned Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or to take appropriate action in the matter.
12. Bail before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the cases. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.
13. Office is directed to place a copy of this order in each matter.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan