ORDER : This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), is filed by petitioner, who is A.13 in crime No.131 of 2022 of Sarpavaram police station, Kakinada, now being investigated by CID, RO, Visakhapatnam, seeking regular bail. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 406, 408 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. Basing on a report lodged by one Borra Kanaka Durga Prasad, District Co-operative Officer (FAC), Kakinada, the subject crime came to be registered by police. Thereafter, the said crime was transferred to the CID. 3. Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is not the Director of M/s. Jayalakshmi Mutually Aided Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited; that major portion of investigation is completed; the petitioner has been in jail for the last more than 40 days, and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation, and hence, he prays to consider request of the petitioner for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent, contends that the petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s. Jayalakshmi Mutually Aided Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited; that it is a case of criminal conspiracy, misappropriation and cheating the public at large, who invested their hard earned money into the Society; that investigation is pending in the subject crime and hence, he prays to dismiss the bail application. 6. The point for arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s. Jayalakshmi Mutually Aided Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited or not, and whether the request of the petitioner can be considered for grant of bail ? 7. The allegations, in brief, are that petitioner/ A.13 is one of the Directors of M/s. Jayalakshmi Mutually Aided Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited, Sarpavaram Junction, Kakinada. A.1, A.2 and other Managing Committee members of the Society misappropriated funds collected from the depositors in the form of various deposits and purchased huge immovable properties in various parts of the State. 7. The allegations, in brief, are that petitioner/ A.13 is one of the Directors of M/s. Jayalakshmi Mutually Aided Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited, Sarpavaram Junction, Kakinada. A.1, A.2 and other Managing Committee members of the Society misappropriated funds collected from the depositors in the form of various deposits and purchased huge immovable properties in various parts of the State. It is alleged that the accused, with a deceptive mind from the inception, collected deposits from about 19,000 innocent public, by luring them of paying high rate of interest, introduced different schemes viz. Fixed Deposits, MID, RD, Gold Deposit Scheme, Diamond Deposit Scheme, Sravani Deposit Scheme, etc., gave wide publicity, attracted innocent public, retired employees, petty vendors and other sections of people and collected huge amount of about Rs.580.00 crores, distributed the said amount among themselves in the form of loans and made their henchmen to apply for loans and sanctioned irregular loans without verifying the documents and issued loans in their names, and misappropriated the amount of the depositors and diverted the deposited amount for their personal gain, and defaulted in return of the deposits either in cash or kind, as agreed upon. It is further alleged that the accused intentionally sanctioned huge amounts of loans to their relatives/ henchmen without obtaining proper security, and that the Chartered Accountant also colluded with the Managing Committee members and created fictitious reports and all the accused cheated members. The petitioner/A.13 also floated shell companies. 8. Section 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 contemplates that every year, within 30 days of the conduct of the annual General Body Meeting, every Co-operative Society shall file the following with the Registrar, namely, …. (e) list of names of Directors, their addresses and their terms of office. 9. The learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of Smt. Y.L.Siva Kalpana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for C.I.D., filed certain documents. A perusal of copy of Form-VI (Statement showing the list of name of Directors, their address, terms of office) would go to show that the petitioner has been shown as one of the Directors of the Society, in column 6a. Under column 6c, his date of retirement is shown as 12.03.2018. Copy of another Form No.VI is filed wherein also the petitioner is shown as one of the Directors of the Society and his date of retirement is shown as 12.03.2007. Under column 6c, his date of retirement is shown as 12.03.2018. Copy of another Form No.VI is filed wherein also the petitioner is shown as one of the Directors of the Society and his date of retirement is shown as 12.03.2007. The said Forms have been certified by the District Co-operative Officer, Kakinada. 10. The learned Advocate General also filed copy of the proceedings of the Election Officer of the said Society showing election of office bearers in place of resignation/completion of term by rotation, wherein a comprehensive report has been filed with regard to the election process held in the premises of Head Office of the Society wherein name of the petitioner has been shown as one of the elected Directors and his term is shown as 5 years i.e. from 13.03.2013 to 12.03.2018. A perusal of the proceedings of the Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 31.12.2007 also goes to show that the petitioner signed as one of the Directors. 11. The accusation as against the petitioner is that he, being the Director of the said Co-operative Society, in collusion with other accused, had collected approximately an amount of Rs.540.00 crores from the public at large and misappropriated those amounts by violating various provisions of law and the Societies Act. He conspired with the other accused and sanctioned irregular loans to the kith and kin, and by virtue of the acts of the accused, the Society had wound up with humongous loss. It is also alleged that the petitioner has also flouted shell companies. He is close relative of A.1 and A.2, and with the help of the shell companies, he diverted funds of the Society by creating fake loan accounts and had withdrawn huge loan amounts. 12. A perusal of the remand report goes to show that the petitioner herein established a proprietary firm called M.K. Film Productions and he produced film and lost his money, due to which he could not pay back term loan availed by him to the said Society. 13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was arrested on 24.11.2022 and since then he is in judicial remand. He submits that major portion of investigation is completed. 13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was arrested on 24.11.2022 and since then he is in judicial remand. He submits that major portion of investigation is completed. He contended that the investigating agency identified the firms which gave deficiencies in funds/assets, and when major portion of investigation is completed, detaining the petitioner further would not in any way improve the case of prosecution. 14. The learned Advocate General relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46 . The said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with the offences under the IPC and under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PML Act, 2002’).. In the present case on hand, there are no offences under the PML Act, 2002. 15. The learned Advocate General submitted that the investigating agency filed complaints as against the petitioner and others. As many as 18 crimes have been registered as against the petitioner and others. It is submitted that in respect of other crimes, police filed application for custody and the court below granted custody of the petitioner to the investigating agency. It is submitted that investigation is at nascent stage and certain shell companies have to be identified by the investigating agency. In view of the same and having regard to the gravity of the offence and since custody of the petitioner is also granted by the court below to the investigating agency, in respect of other crimes, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.