High Court
Legal Reasoning
1BA717.2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO.717 OF 2025.SHOBHABAI GORAKSHANATH VIDHATE,Age: 51 yrs., Occu.: Housewife,R/o.: Pachegaon, Tq. Newasa,Dist.: Ahmednagar.. ApplicantVERSUS.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,Through Police Station, MIDC,Tq. & Dist. Ahilyanagar ..Respondent…WITH…CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2207 OF 2025…GANESH SHANTARAM @ SHANKARRAO BHUJBAL ANDOTHERSVERSUSSHOBHABAI GORAKSHANATH VIDHATE AND ANOTHER…Advocate for Applicant: S. R. SapkalAPP for the Respondent/State: Mr. G. O. Wattamwar Advocate for Intervenor: Mr. A. B. Chormal…CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :08.08.2025ORDER : 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, thelearned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counselfor the intervenors. 2BA717.20252.The applicant is seeking bail as she was arrestedon 22.01.2025 in connection with Crime No.0667/2024,dated 10.09.2024, registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station,Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Section 3 ofthe Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (InFinancial Establishments) Act, 1999 & under Sections 316(5),318(3), 318(4), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3.The case of the prosecution as is seen from thefacts narrated in the trial court’s Judgment at paragraph no.3,as under:“3) Perusal of the FIR reflects that, the informant hasalleged that he is a Retired Naib Tahsildar. In theMonth of December 2021. Dhanday Urban Nidhi Ltd.Patsanstha started in the village of the complainantby one Bharad Pund, Applicant No.1 Ashwini Pundalong with other Directors. In the year 2022, thename of Bhagya Laxmi Multistate Credit Society Ltd.has been changed as Multistate Society. From January2022 to 26/08/2024 Chairman, Vice Chairman,Board of Directors, Managers and the Servants of thesaid Multisate Society visited the houses of depositorsin the vicinity of village Jeur by luring the hugeinterest and obtained trust by giving double amountof invested amount. Since last 06 months, depositorsare demanding their money back, however theaccused persons locked the premises and areabsconding. Depositors felt cheated and deceived tothe tune of Rs.94,14,296/-. The accused personsmisappropriated the said amount for their benefits.On these allegations, the crime came to beregistered.” 3BA717.20254.The applicant is arrested on 22.01.2025. Thecharge-sheet in the matter is filed on 28.02.2025. The learnedcounsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicantis 51 year old women and she is behind the bars for more thansix months and she has no concern with the alleged crime.The applicant is roped in the offence because she is mother-in-law of the Chairman of the accused no.1 of the Bhagya LaxmiCo-operative Multistate Credit Society Ltd. (for brevity “theSociety”) and that accused no.1 has obtained the KYC papersof the applicant and misused the same. There is no transactionin the name of the applicant and there is no material todemonstrate that the applicant is beneficiary of the allegedcrime. It is pleaded that the applicant does not know thecomplainant or the depositors of the Society. Therefore, it isclear that the applicant has not cheated the depositors.Although, vague allegations are made in the FIR, there is nospecific evidence regarding cheating at the hands of theapplicant. The learned counsel for the applicant furthersubmits that perusal of the statement of the servant workingwith the Society revealed that the applicant has never visitedthe said society and not given any assurance of doubling the 4BA717.2025amount. The applicant was also not aware of the fact that shewas the Director of the Society and she has not attended themeetings of the Society nor she has physically signed registeror resolution of the Society. It is stated that the applicant isthe women Director and that there is nothing on record toshow that she was actually looking towards conduct ofbusiness of the Society.5.The learned counsel for the applicant furthersubmits that the offence under Sections 316(5), 318(3),318(4) are triable by the Magistrate and the offence underSection 3 of the M.P.I.D. Act is triable by Sessions Court,however, the maximum punishment is only for 6 years.6.Per contra, the learned APP, so also, the learnedcounsel for the intervenors submits that the present applicantis one of the Director of the Board of Directors of the Societyand during her tenure huge amount of Rs.54,77,89,291/- hasbeen misappropriated. More than 460 people have depositedthe their hard earned money in the Society and the amount ismisappropriated. The present applicant after registration of 5BA717.2025the crime immediately transferred the properties to thirdpersons due to fear of the misappropriation and the same isobjected by the depositors before the Circle Officer, Newasa. Itis stated that every month meetings were conducted by theBoard of Directors and the Chairman and Vice-chairman andthat they have knowledge of deposits and disbursementsmade.7.The learned APP submitted that the applicant isthe Director of the Society, who is related to accused no.1Chairman and accused no.2 Vice-chairman. The applicant ismother-in-law of accused no.1 and mother of accused no.2Vice-chairman and from the investigation papers it can beseen that the applicant is the Director. It is further submittedthat from the account of the Society an amount ofRs.20,40,90,416/- shown to be transferred in the accountmaintained by the Society in the YES Bank. Upon perusal ofthe account statement of YES Bank, it clearly shows that noamount is received in the YES Bank account, which clearlyshows that this much amount has been misappropriated at thehands of the Board of Directors of the Society. It is also 6BA717.2025submitted that the Society has not maintained the recordproperly. The Directors have not conducted the audit of theSociety, which shows the intention to fraud the public atlarge.8.The learned APP further submits that Section316(5) of the BNS punishment is provided for life or 10 yearsalong with fine and other provisions which have been appliedin this offence are lessor to this provisions. He submits thatprimary responsible persons are the applicant, accused no.1and accused no.2 and, as such, bail may not be granted to thepresent applicant.9.The law as regards grant of bail in economicoffences is discussed in the below noted judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para22 and 23 of the judgment delivered in the case of TarunKumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement,reported in AIR 2024 SC (Criminal) 217 has observed asunder :-“22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held incatena of decisions, the economic offencesconstitute a class apart and need to be visited 7BA717.2025with a different approach in the matter of bail.The economic offences having deep-rootedconspiracies and involving huge loss of publicfunds need to be viewed seriously andconsidered as grave offences affecting theeconomy of the country as a whole and therebyposing serious threat to the financial health ofthe country. Undoubtedly, economic offenceshave serious repercussions on the developmentof the country as a whole. To cite a fewjudgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan MohanReddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation,Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, Gautam Kundu v. Directorate ofEnforcement (supra), State of Bihar and Anr. v.Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai. This Courttaking a serious note with regard to theeconomic offences had observed as back as in1987 in case of State of Gujarat v. MohanlalJitamalji Porwal and Anr. as under:5... The entire community is aggrieved ifthe economic offenders who ruin theeconomy of the State are not brought tobooks. A murder may be committed inthe heat of moment upon passions beingaroused. An economic offence iscommitted with cool calculation anddeliberate design with an eye onpersonal profit regardless of theconsequence to the community. Adisregard for the interest of thecommunity can be manifested only atthe cost of forfeiting the trust and faithof the community in the system toadminister justice in an even-handedmanner without fear of criticism fromthe quarters which view white collarcrimes with a permissive eye unmindfulof the damage done to the NationalEconomy and National Interest…”10.Considering the submissions, as above, prima 8BA717.2025facie, accused no.1 – Chairman, accused no.2 – Vice-chairmanand the present applicant – Director, who is the mother-in-lawof accused no.1 would be main responsible persons in theoffence.11.Considering the huge fraud, more particularly,when the record shows that Rs.20,40,90,416/- shown to betransferred in the account of the Society maintained in theYES Bank and that there is no such deposit, the persons whoare in the control of the Society are responsible for theoffence. Considering the same, at this stage, no case is madeout for grant of bail. All the assets of the applicant will have tobe traced by the investigation as they would be required forsatisfying the MPID proceedings, so also, in the event, theapplicant is released on bail, the applicant may dispose of theassets. The offence is grave and, as such, bail cannot begranted to the applicant. However, the applicant being awomen and considering the age of the applicant, liberty isreserved to revive the bail application after one (01) year, inthe event, the trial does not conclude .
Decision
9BA717.202512.The Bail Application stands rejected.13.Criminal Application No.2207 of 2025 also standsdisposed of. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe