High Court
Legal Reasoning
907-ABA-1719-24.odt {1}IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD907 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1719 OF 2024Sangita Ganpatrao GhugeVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Another......Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar a/w Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocates forApplicantMr. S.K. Shirse, APP for Respondents – StateMr.D.M. Mane, Advocate h/f Mr. N.G.Ttalekar, Advocate for Informant......CORAM: HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATE: 30 SEPTEMBER, 2025PER COURT :-1.Heard both the sides.2.The applicant has been arraigned as an accused in C.R. No. 438of 2024, registered at Bhagya Nagar Police Station, District Nanded, forthe offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code [IPC], and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the MaharashtraProtection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments)[MPID] Act.3.Initially complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code of CriminalProcedure [Cr.P.C.] came to be filed before the learned Magistrate and 907-ABA-1719-24.odt {2}upon the order passed therein the present FIR has been registered bythe police machinery. The allegations in short are that the applicant'shusband who is accused No.1 and his friend who is accused No.2 haveformed a private limited company by the name Riseing Life EnterprisesPvt. Ltd. of which they both were directors. The said company was dulyregistered with the Registrar of the Companies. In the FIR, it has beenalleged that the present applicant, along with the co-accused, inducedthe public at large to to make investment in the said company and inreturn were assured attractive interest rate. Accordingly, severalinvestors have invested their amounts in the company. The presentapplicant was an active agent of the said company and was also thelegally wedded wife of accused No. 1 till 2021. It is alleged that thepresent applicant induced the investors to huge amounts against whichshe has assured the benefit of attractive interest from the company. TheFIR also mentions about business of the company showing that thecompany was investing in the landed property and after developing thesaid landed plots, the company was earning its profit. They were alsoinvolved in development of shopping mall, commercial complex andthat the profits earned from such business were to be shared with theinvestors in accordance with their investments. It is alleged that afterthe invested amounts matured and the investors demanded repaymentalong with the assured interest, they approached accused Nos. 1 and 2, 907-ABA-1719-24.odt {3}however, the accused persons started giving vague answers and avoidedmaking any payments. Even the company offices at Nanded weresubsequently shut down, and thus investors realized that theirinvestment has been duped and they have been cheated by accusedNos.1, 2 and the present applicant. FIR discloses approximatelyRs.96,00,000/- which has been reflected in the charge-sheet as proceedsof crime.4.The applicant was granted interim relief on 10.10.2024 and bythe said order she was directed to attend the concerned Police Stationonce in a week. The learned advocate for the applicant informs that shehas been regularly attending the Police Station. The learned APP doesnot dispute the same.5.The learned APP referring to the material collected during theinvestigation has read certain statements of the witnesses recordedunder Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the roleof the applicant has been specifically mentioned as agent of thecompany. According to the learned prosecutor, the applicant wasactively involved in collecting amounts from investors on behalf of thecompany. She was also actively involved in holding seminars andinducing people to invest in the company by assuring them of attractivebenefits in the form of interest on the principal amounts invested. In
Legal Reasoning
907-ABA-1719-24.odt {4}short, according to the learned APP, there is sufficient material onrecord to show the applicant's active involvement in the alleged offence.6.The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the informant hasalso argued on the same line. He has also raised the grievance about theState Government not appointing the competent authority as prescribedunder the provisions of the MPID Act and so as to attach the propertiesbelonging to the accused persons, including the applicant. He placeson record order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Division Bench of thisCourt in Writ Petition No. 3013 of 2025 filed by one Santosh AmbedkarShevale, who is the investor in the said petition. The grievance has beenraised about the non-appointing of competent authority and no stepsare being taken to attach the property under the provisions of the MPIDAct. Perusal of the order shows that the Division Bench of this Court, inthe said order, has taken serious note of such failure on the part of theCollector who is supposed to appoint competent authority under theprovisions of the MPID Act. He also submitted that the divorceproceedings and subsequent separation from the accused No.1 by theapplicant is only on paper and even till date the applicant is residing inthe same premises as of the accused No.1. 907-ABA-1719-24.odt {5}7.No doubt, material on record reflects active participation of theapplicant in the entire offence, The applicant who is the wife of accusedNo.1 has also acted as an agent on behalf of the company and haveactively participated in collecting the amounts and inducing the peopleto invest in her husband's company against which an assurance ofattractive interest has been given to the investors. The investigation iscompleted and the charge sheet has already been filed. Though LearnedAPP informs this Court that the sphere of the entire scam is likely to beenhanced and therefore the scope of investigation under Section 178 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure is still kept open. Though there ismaterial available on record at this stage when this Court is consideringapplication for anticipatory bail, it cannot close its eyes on the fact thatthe interim relief granted in favour of the applicant since October 2024is still in place and the applicant has attended the Police Station and hascomplied with the conditions imposed upon her. She is also a womanand therefore have a statutory protection under Section 438 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure. Once the charge-sheet has been filed, and theapplicant has been protected for over a year from the date of theinterim order till today, I do not find any reason to vacate the interimrelief or to reject the application. No ground for custodial interrogationhas been made out either by the learned APP or by the learnedAdvocate for the informant. 907-ABA-1719-24.odt {6}8.In the light of the above, the application is allowed and theinterim protection granted to the applicant by order dated 10.10.2024stands confirmed on the same terms and conditions. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] JUDGE S P Rane