JUDGMENT Both the applications are filed under section 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of relief of anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondents/accused from aforesaid two proceedings. They are granted relief in M-Crime No. 1/2012 registered in Ghansawangi Police Station, Dist. Jalna for offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 471 etc. of Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered on the basis of order made by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna in a private complaint filed by the present applicant. Both the sides are heard. 2. The learned APP submitted that the investigation was hampered due to the order of anticipatory bail and there was no other alternative before the police than to file chargesheet as the relief was granted by the Sessions Court. One Officer of concerned bank remained present as per the directions given by this Court. He also supported that there is substance in the allegations and the bank supports the applications filed for cancellation of relief. 3. The crime is registered in respect of the fraud of Rs. 5.5 Crores committed in Kumbhar-Pimpalgaon branch of Bank of Maharashtra (a nationalized Bank). The respondents/accused from the two proceedings were working as Branch Manager in this Branch during the period when the fraud was committed. No chargesheet is filed as against the respondent/accused from the second proceeding viz. Padmakar Jyotipurkar and in view of this circumstance, there is no need to discuss the material or the allegations made against the respondent from second proceeding. 4. One Shri. Pandurang Bhange was Sarpanch of village Pimpalkhed (Bk), Tahsil Ghansawangi and he was leader of a national political party. There is allegation that he joined hands with the Branch Manager of aforesaid branch for creating false record and for obtaining loan from the bank in false names and by using false record, the entire loan amount was collected by this man by using following modus operandi. (i) Around 200 proposals were made by using fictitious names and entire record of these transactions was forged. (ii) Around 400 persons were not holding agricultural land. Most of them were simple labours. But proposals were made in their names and loan was obtained under the scheme like crop loan. For that, false revenue record like 7/12 extract and certificate of Local Body was prepared. (ii) Around 400 persons were not holding agricultural land. Most of them were simple labours. But proposals were made in their names and loan was obtained under the scheme like crop loan. For that, false revenue record like 7/12 extract and certificate of Local Body was prepared. In some cases, the signatures of labours were obtained by making false representation to them that it was the record of insurance which was to be taken in their names, but in many cases, the signatures and thumb impressions were also forged. (iii) In remaining cases loans were obtained in the names of some agriculturists by obtaining record and their signatures from them by making false representation to them. Representation was made to them that for insurance purpose such record and signatures were required. (iv) In some cases, it was informed to the agriculturists that in future they can get big loan and for that, some record of loan needs to be prepared and first loan amount would be taken by Shiro Bhange and he will be repaying the same. (v) In more than 350 cases, Shri Bhange stood guarantor by showing his jaggery factory and he actually collected the amount. He could not have remained surety or guarantor in these cases. (vi) When notices about recovery were given to some of the persons by the Bank, they realized that they were deceived and false record was created against them. However, the bank avoided to supply information to them when they requested for information. (viii) Most of the victims did not dare to come forward to make complaint due to position of Shri Bhange and as he was very influential person, he gave threats of life to them. 5. Many names of affected persons are given in the complaint. With the chargesheet, statements of witnesses are produced and some papers of sample transactions are also produced. There are statements of witnesses like Afsanbi Tamboli, Kusum Jaybhai, Asarabai Mundhe, Satyashila Mundhe, Raj Kute, Sumanbai Kute, Dwarkabai Kute, Jyoti Kute, Vithabai Kute and others to the effect that they do not own any agricultural land and they have no information about the loan taken in their names. There are statements of persons like Ambadas Ghorpade, Sumanbai Ghorpade, Sunanda Nagare, Dwarkabai Nagare etc. There are statements of persons like Ambadas Ghorpade, Sumanbai Ghorpade, Sunanda Nagare, Dwarkabai Nagare etc. to show that they were working in jaggery factory of Shri. Bhange, they were not having agricultural land, but their signatures were obtained on form by Bhange by saying that Bhange was making proposal for their insurance. In all these cases, false record was created to show that they own agricultural land. These persons also do not know how much loan was taken in their names by Bhange. 6. There are statements of persons like Pandurang Kedar, Smt. Sulawati Kendre, Vithabai Kendre, Nivrutti Kendre, Namdeo Shirsat, Bhimrao Shirsat, Navnath Shirsat, Jivan Kendre etc. to the effect that they own agricultural land, but they did not obtain loan and some signatures were obtained by Bhange by deceiving them. 7. The record collected by investigating agency shows that list of more than 700 debtors from the aforesaid branch was collected for the year 2011-2012. Police made inquiry and investigation with various departments and necessary information in that regard was collected before filing of chargesheet. Initially the bank did not cooperate and it was very reluctant to supply the record. There is correspondence to that effect. 8. Information from Police Patil of aforesaid village is collected and that is to the effect that from the list of 691 persons supplied to him, only 395 persons were residents of the village, 14 were already dead and the remaining persons were never residents of this village, when they were shown as residents of this village. Thus, even in the names of deceased persons, proposals were made and the amount was collected by Shri Bhange from the bank. 9. Tahsildar has given information to the police that out of 729 debtors, around 300 persons were having agricultural land at the relevant time, but in many cases their holding was negligible and they could not have got the crop loan of the amount which was given. Thus, in most of the cases, false revenue record and the record of Local Body was created. 10. The record shows that the respondent/accused from first proceeding had visited the village of Bhange and he tried to convince some villagers in whose names the loan was taken. Thus, the Branch Manager was actively involved in the fraud. 11. Some sample cases are produced with the chargesheet. 10. The record shows that the respondent/accused from first proceeding had visited the village of Bhange and he tried to convince some villagers in whose names the loan was taken. Thus, the Branch Manager was actively involved in the fraud. 11. Some sample cases are produced with the chargesheet. The loan record of Ananta Andhale shows that 7/12 extracts were produced in his case and the loan of Rs. 45,000/- was obtained. There are cases of Kamlabai Doiphode in whose name loan of Rs. 49,500/- was obtained. There are other such cases like of Vanita Andhale etc. and those cases show that the proposals were not complete, there were no photographs and in all cases, the guarantors' signature was not obtained on the letter of guarantee and said Bhange was shown as a guarantor. 12. There is statement of Divisional Manager of the Bank to the effect that the Branch Manager had power to sanction the loan and only those cases where the loan of Rs. 60 lakh is claimed, but it is below the amount of Rs. 2 Crore, the proposal comes to him and he has the power in those cases. These circumstances are considered by the investigating agency. 13. The aforesaid record shows that it is very difficult to presume that the Branch Manager - respondent/accused from first proceeding was not knowing the aforesaid circumstances. When the loan is granted by taking security of immovable property, the record is generally verified, valuation report is obtained and then the loan is sanctioned and in all the cases, no such procedure was followed. When the loan is given, the charge is created on the land given as security, but no such charge was created in these cases and due to that, the persons in whose name the loan was taken, could not know anything about these activities. 14. The record shows that the bank started departmental inquiry against the respondent/accused from first proceeding but bank did not approach the police. This conduct of the bank is also suspicious. It is a public money and it was necessary for bank to take proper action. 14. The record shows that the bank started departmental inquiry against the respondent/accused from first proceeding but bank did not approach the police. This conduct of the bank is also suspicious. It is a public money and it was necessary for bank to take proper action. Only when the present matter came up for hearing, the bank published a list of around 126 persons from the aforesaid transactions to inform that they had not turned up to pay the loan amount and the bank had received information that they were not holding any land. It appears that subsequently, Shri Bhange paid the loan amount in some cases. However, in most of the other cases, the loan is not repaid and the bank is duped. 15. In Sessions Court, the respondent/accused from first proceeding contended that Shri Bhange was old customer and he had introduced all the debtors/applicants to the bank for giving them loan. It was contended that as some record was produced for getting loan, the loan was sanctioned. Surprisingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has accepted this defence and ignored all the aforesaid circumstances. Aforesaid circumstances are not at all considered and the record was not even touched by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Another submission was made before the Sessions Court that the respondent/accused would be suspended if the relief of anticipatory bail is not granted. After considering such submissions the relief is granted by Sessions Court. It is observed by the Sessions Court that there is no possibility of absconding of Branch Manager and the record must have been already collected. The possibility of hampering the investigation and tampering with the witnesses is not at all considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. When there is evidence on forgery, when there is creation of false revenue record, when the photographs of the applicants were not there, when thumb impressions of the applicants were obtained and when no record of identification was there in many cases, it was necessary for the Trial Court to infer that the custodial interrogation would have helped police to collect more material. 16. Such things can happen only when the man in charge like Branch Manager is benefited, otherwise the procedure would have been followed and the aforesaid defects and breach of condition could have been easily detected. 16. Such things can happen only when the man in charge like Branch Manager is benefited, otherwise the procedure would have been followed and the aforesaid defects and breach of condition could have been easily detected. Such instances are increasing and the persons like Branch Manager – respondent/accused are duping the nationalized banks also. Such conduct falls under section 409 of I.P.C. Though the crime was not registered for this offence, chargesheet is now filed for this offence also. The chargesheet is filed for offence of conspiracy also. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed gross error in granting relief of anticipatory bail to the respondent/accused from the first proceeding. 17. The learned counsel for applicant placed reliance on the case reported as (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 466 : [2013 ALL SCR 2184] [Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation]. The Apex Court, in paragraph Nos. 23 and 25, has observed as under :- "23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujrat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under : (SCC p. 371, para 5) "5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to hook. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with an permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest." 24. .... 25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. .... 25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." The learned counsel for applicant placed reliance also on the case reported as AIR 1985 SUPREME COURT 969 [Pokar Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.]. In this case, the power of Apex Court under Article 136 of Constitution of India is discussed. 18. In the case reported as AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 296: [2012 ALL MR(Cri) 4074 (S.C.)] [Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.], the Apex Court has discussed the provisions of section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. with reference to the landmark case of Supreme Court like Puran Vs. Rambilas and Anr. reported as AIR 2001 SC 2023 : [2001 ALL MR(Cri) 1210 (S.C.)]. The observations are as follows: "While cancelling bail under Section 439 (2) of the Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society." 19. In view of the aforesaid position of law, facts and circumstances, this Court holds that a relief granted in favour of respondent/accused from the first proceeding viz. Deepak s/o. Shriram Gondse needs to be cancelled. No such order can be made against the respondent/accused from the second proceeding as police did not file chargesheet against him and no further action is taken by the complainant. So the following order. ORDER (I) Criminal Application No. 2255/2013 is allowed. (II) The order made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in C.M.P. (Bail) No. 186/2013 is hereby set aside and the relief of anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondent/accused from Criminal Application No. 2255/2013 viz. Deepak s/o. Shriram Gondse stands cancelled. (III) He is to be committed to the custody. (IV) The learned counsel for respondent/accused from first proceeding requests that some time may be granted to challenge the order. Time of fifteen (15) days is given to him to surrender or to challenge the order made by this Court. (V) Criminal Application No. 2256/2013 stands rejected. Ordered accordingly.