The Court granted bail to the applicant in a financial fraud case involving cheating and forgery, holding that the evidence did not prima facie establish that she was a beneficiary of the defrauded amount.
Applicant released on bail on furnishing PB and SB of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-AUG:24653
927-BA-1106-24.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1106 OF 2024
SUNANDA W/O ANIL PATIL VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Satej S. Jadhav along with Mr. Kamlakar J. Suryawanshi APP for Respondents : Mr. S. P. Sonpawale
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J. DATE : 11-10-2024
PER COURT :-
927-BA-1106-24.odt
2
Thereafter, she has no concern with any of the society or the financial institution run by her family. However, she being a member of the family has been arraigned as an accused. She is languishing in jail for sufficient time. She was not the beneficiary of a single penny from the defaulted amount. Obviously, she being a daughter-in-law had to act upon the directions of her father-inlaw. Her bank accounts produced by the prosecution does not show that she was benefited from the alleged fraud. She was the insurance agent. She was depositing the returns in her account whenever the recurring deposit was matured, she transferred it to her bank account. Her husband also is the co-accused. Naturally, her husband was transferring amount to her account for family expenses. The prosecution had applied to the Sessions Court to add the provision under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short, “M.P.I.D. Act”), however, it is yet not accepted. In the circumstances, she may be granted bail.
927-BA-1106-24.odt
3
possible.
ORDER
i) The application is allowed.
4 927-BA-1106-24.odt
rrd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant was the beneficiary of the defrauded amount to entangle her in the crime.
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant despite her arrest as a member of the family in a financial fraud case.
Whether the evidence on record prima facie shows that the applicant was a beneficiary of the fraudulent amount.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunanda W/o Anil Patil
The State of Maharashtra
Another
S. G. Mehare
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
