Disposed

Rupali Raghunath Kasekar @ Mrs. Riddhi Paresh Bhingarde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Apr 2024BA/929/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by a woman accused of receiving about Rs.1.77 crore of misappropriated PWD Chiplun funds in her bank account. Court found almost entire amount recovered, co-accused with similar roles already bailed out, no criminal antecedents, and a 13-month-old child, and enlarged the applicant on bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two local solvent sureties, subject to conditions including reporting to police, surrendering passport, and not tampering with evidence.

Rupali Raghunath Kasekar @ Mrs. Riddhi Paresh Bhingarde Vs the… — Corruption | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶2

2024:BHC-AS:16637

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.929 OF 2024

¶5

Rupali Raghunath Kasekar …Applicant
@ Riddhi Paresh Bhingarde
Versus
The State of Maharashtra…Respondent

¶6

Mr. Vipin Bidkar, Advocate, for the Applicant.
Ms. S. S. Kaushik, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Pankaj Vilas Khopde, P.S.I., Chiplun Police Station present.
Mr. Aashish Ballal, Police Naik, Chiplun Police Station present.

¶7

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 5^th APRIL 2024

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1. Heard Mr. Bidkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Ms.

¶10

Kaushik, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

¶11

2. This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section 439

¶12

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant details are
as follows:-

¶13

`1.C. R. No.`	`379 of 2022`
`2.Date of registration of F.I.R.`	`01/12/2020`
`3.Name of Police Station`	`Chiplun, District-Ratnagiri`
`4.Section/s invoked`	`406, 409, 420, 34 of the`

¶14

Page 1 of 13

¶15

Sonali

¶16

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶17

	`Indian Penal Code, 1860;` `65 and 66 of the` `Information Technology Act,` `2000;`
`5.Date of incident`	`28/10/2020 to 13/09/2022`
`6.Date of arrest`	`12/04/2023`
`7.Date of filing of Charge-sheet`	`31/01/2023`
`8.Date of filing of Supplementary` `Charge-sheet`	`10/05/2023`

¶18

3.As per the prosecution case, the Complainant was working
as an Executive Engineer-PWD, Chiplun since 21st October 2022.
While going through the records of the PWD office, Chiplun, the
complainant noticed a discrepancy in the amount of deposit head
part II and part V and during his inquiry, he discovered that the
deposit head part II and part V have been deposited by using login
ID and password of the said office. Thereafter, it was discovered
that Accused Nos.7 and 8 while they were in Government service
working in the PWD Office, Chiplun, used the login ID and
password to distribute various funds in the accounts of Accused
Nos.1 to 6. Different amounts were transferred to the accounts of
Accused Nos.1 to 6. Thus, as per the prosecution case, the Accused
Nos.7 and 8 who were in Government employment and were
working in the PWD office-Chiplun, took undue advantage of their
position of authority. Thus, even as per the prosecution case, the

¶19

Page 2 of 13

¶20

Sonali

¶21

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶22

main accused persons are Accused Nos.7 and 8. Accused No.9 is
the sibling of Accused No.7 and Accused No.1 i.e. the present
Applicant is wife of Accused No.9.

¶23

4.Mr. Bidkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that
there are total 9 accused persons, out of which Accused Nos.2 to 6
and Accused No.9 have been released on bail. He submitted that
F.I.R. was lodged on 1st December 2022. Accused Nos.2 to 9 were
arrested on 8th December 2022. At that time, the Accused No.1 was
pregnant and therefore she was not arrested. The present
Applicant i.e. Accused No.1 gave birth to a female child on 2nd
January 2023. The Applicant surrendered on 12th April 2023. He
submitted that before that the Applicant filed an Anticipatory Bail
Application and she was granted interim relief for some time. He
submitted that the Applicant had earlier preferred Bail Application
No.2155 of 2023 in this Court, however, the same was simplicitor
withdrawn. Thereafter the Applicant preferred a Bail Application
before the learned Sessions Judge, Chiplun which was rejected on
6th January 2024. He submitted that the Accused Nos.7 and 8
transferred an amount of Rs.1,76,99,510/- to the account of the
Applicant. He submitted that the Applicant has re-

¶24

Page 3 of 13

¶25

Sonali

¶26

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶27

transferred an amount of Rs.1,71,45,985/- and the same was
received either by Accused No.7 or by Accused No.9. He submitted
that total amount of Rs.1,70,22,077/- has been recovered from
Accused No.7 or Accused No.9. He submitted that only an amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- has been recovered from Accused No.1. He
submitted that the Applicant is young woman aged 32 years and is
having a child aged 13 months. He submitted that the Applicant is
incarcerated since one year. He submitted that the Accused Nos.2
to 6 who are having the same role as that of the Applicant, have
already been released on bail and therefore the Applicant be also
released on bail. To substantiate his contention that almost the
entire amount which was deposited in the account of the
Applicant, has been recovered, he submitted certain charts. He
submitted that, in fact, the amount which was deposited in the
account of Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, and 5 has not been recovered, yet
the said Accused have been granted bail by the learned Trial Court.

¶28

5.On the other hand, Ms. Kaushik, learned APP for the
Respondent-State strongly opposed the Bail Application. She
submitted that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, out of which gold has
been purchased by the Accused No.9, the procedure for seizure of

¶29

Page 4 of 13

¶30

Sonali

¶31

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶32

the said gold is in progress. However, she confirmed that except for
the said gold worth Rs.2,50,000/-, entire amount is recovered.

¶33

6.At the outset, it is to be noted that an earlier Bail Application
bearing No.2155 of 2023 was simplicitor allowed to be withdrawn
by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Anuja Prabhudessai, J.) by
Order dated 18th August 2023.

¶34

7.The chart which the learned Counsel for the Applicant has
submitted showing the recovery of total amount of
Rs.1,71,22,077/- out of an amount of Rs.1,76,99,510/- deposited
in the account of the Applicant i.e. Accused No.1, is reproduced
herein below for ready reference:-

¶35

AMOUNT TRANSFERRED BY MAIN ACCUSED (ACCUSED NOS. 7 & 8) TO ACCUSED NO. 1- 1,76,99,510/-

¶36

THE AMOUNT RETRANSFERRED BY ACCUSED NO. 1 RECEIVED BY ACCUSED NO. 7 & 9 – 1,71,45,985/-

¶37

`Sr.`	`AMOUNT`	`AMOUNT`	`AMOUNT`	`PURPOSE`	`Page Nos. /`
`No`	`.` `TRANSFERRED FROM`	`TRANSFERRE`			`Evidence`
		`D TO`
`1.`	`ACCUSED No. 1 RUPALI`	`ACCUSED No.`	`1,16,85,985/-`	`AS ACCUSED`	`819`
	`RAGHUNATH KASEKAR`	`7 PRATIK`		`No. 7`
	`BANK OF INDIA`	`PRAMOD`		`INSTRUCTED`
	`KHANDA COLONY`	`BHINGARDE`		`ACCUSED`
	`ACCOUNT NUMBER -`	`STATE BANK`		`NUMBER 1 TO`

¶38

Page 5 of 13

¶39

Sonali

¶40

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶41

	`124410110008522`	`OF INDIA` `BRANCH` `CHIPLUN` `ACCOUNT` `NUMBER -` `20403241327`		`RETRANSFER` `THIS` `AMOUNT TO` `HIS ACCOUNT`
`2.`	`ACCUSED NUMBER 1` `RUPALI RAGHUNATH` `KASEKAR`	`MAHESH` `CHANDRAKA` `NT REDIJ` `(CONTRACTO` `R)`	`10,50,000/-`	`AS ACCUSED` `No. 7` `INSTRUCTED` `TO SEND THIS` `AMOUNT TO` `CONTRACTOR` `MAHESH` `REDIJ AND` `THIS` `AMOUNT IS` `USED FOR` `RECONSTRUC` `TION OF` `WALOPE’` `S` `BUNGLOW` `WHICH HAS` `BEEN SEIZED` `BY POLICE`	`820`
`3.`	`ACCUSED No. 1 RUPALI` `RAGHUNATH KASEKAR` `AXIS BANK`	`ACCUSED No.` `7 PRATIK` `PRAMOD`	`9,70,000/-`	`AS ACCUSED` `No. 7` `INSTRUCTED`	`820`
	`BRANCH CHINCHWAD ,` `PUNE` `ACCOUNT NUMBER` `921010020225587`	`BHINGARDE (` `IN FORM OF` `CASH )`		`TO GIVE HIM` `THAT` `AMOUNT AND` `THIS` `AMOUNT IS` `USED FOR` `RECONSTRUC` `TION OF` `WALOPE’` `S` `BUNGLOW` `WHICH HAS` `BEEN SEIZED`

¶42

Page 6 of 13

¶43

Sonali

¶44

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶45

				`BY POLICE`
`4.`	`ACCUSED No. 1 RUPALI`	`BHAGYASHRE`	`14,00,000/-`	`( WIFE OF`	`Bank`
	`RAGHUNATH KASEKAR`	`E LAD`		`ACCUSED No.`	`Statement`
	`BANK TRANSFER`	`BANK` `TRANSFER`		`7) AND THIS` `AMOUNT IS` `USED FOR` `RECONSTRUC` `TION OF` `WALOPE’` `S` `BUNGLOW` `WHICH HAS` `BEEN SEIZED` `BY POLICE`
`5.`	`ACCUSED No. 1 RUPALI` `RAGHUNATH KASEKAR`	`ACCUSED No.` `9 PARESH` `PRAMOD` `BHINGARDE`	`3,90,000/-`	`AS PER` `INSTRUCTED` `BY ACCUSED` `No. 7`	`749`
`6.`	`ACCUSED No. 1 RUPALI` `RAGHUNATH KASEKAR`	`ACCUSED No.` `9`	`14,00,000/-`	`FLAT` `PURCHASE` `USED THIS` `PARTICULAR` `AMOUNT FOR` `BUYING FLAT` `WHICH IS` `SEIZED BY` `POLICE AT` `PRESENT`	`508`
`7.`	`ACCUSED No. 1 RUPALI` `RAGHUNATH KASEKAR`	`GOLD WAS` `PURCHASED` `OF THIS`	`2,50,000/-`	`PURCHASE` `GOLD` `SEIZURE`	`820`
		`AMOUNT BY`		`PROCEDURE`
		`ACCUSED No.`		`IS ON GOING`
		`9`		`BY I.O.`
	`Total`			`1,71,45,985/-`

¶46

RECOVERY FROM ACCUSED NOS. 1, 7 & 9 – 1,71,22,077/-

¶47

`SR.N`	`RECOVERY PANCHNAMA AS`	`RECOVERY`	`AMOUNT`	`PAGE NUMBER`
`O`	`BELONG TO ACCUSED`	`FROM`

¶48

Page 7 of 13

¶49

Sonali

¶50

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶51

	`NUMBER 7`
`1`	`GOLD JWELLERY SEIZURE` `PANCHNAMA DATED ON` `08/12/2022`	`ACCUSED` `NUMBER 7` `PRATIK PRAMOD` `BHINGARDE`	`9,81,808/-`	`490-496`
`2`	`TWO CARS` `SEIZURE PANCHANAMA` `DATED ON 8/12/2022`	`FROM ACCUSED` `NUMBER 7` `PRATIK PRAMOD` `BHINGARDE`	`5,75,000/-`	`497-501`
`3`	`REDMI MOBILE` `SEIZURE PANCHNAMA` `DATED ON – 11/12/2022`	`ACCUSED` `NUMBER 7` `PRATIK PRAMOD` `BHINGARDE`	`13,000/-`	`502- 503`
`4`	`1 FLAT` `SEIZURE PANCHNAMA` `DATED ON 30/12/2022`	`ACCUSED` `NUMBER 7` `PRATIK PRAMOD` `BHINGARDE`	`34,57,430/-`	`504-507`
`5`	`BUNGLOW` `SEIZURE OF BUNGLOW` `DATED ON 08/05/2023`	`ACCUSED` `NUMBER 7` `PRATIK PRAMOD` `BHINGARDE`	`70,19,346 /-`	`790-793`
`TOTA`	`L RECOVERY FROM ACCUSED`	`NO 7`	`1,20,46,584 /-`

¶52

`SR.` `NO`	`RECOVERY PANCHNAMA AS` `BELONG TO ACCUSED` `NUMBER 9`	`RECOVERY` `FROM`	`AMOUNT`	`PAGE NUMBER`
`1.`	`FLAT` `SEIZURE PANCHNAMA` `DATED ON – 30/12/2022`	`ACCUSED` `NUMBER 9` `PARESH` `PRAMOD` `BHINGARDE`	`47,25,493/-`	`508`
`2.`	`GOLD AT MUTHOOT`	`ACCUDED`	`2,50,000/-`	`820`
	`FINANACE ( RECOVERY`	`NUMBER 9`
	`PROCEDURE IS ON GOING`	`PARESH`
	`BY INVESTIGATING`	`PRAMOD`
	`OFFICER )`	`BHINGARDE`
`TOTA`	`L RECOVERY FROM ACCUSED`	`NUMBER. 9`	`49,75,493/-`

¶53

Page 8 of 13

¶54

Sonali

¶55

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶56

`SR.` `NO.`	`RECOVERY PANCHNAMA AS` `BELONG TO ACCUSED` `NUMBER 1`	`RECOVERY FROM`	`AMOUNT`	`PAGE NUMBER`
`1`	`TWO WHEELER SEIZURE`	`ACCUSED`	`1,00,000/-`	`782-784`
	`PANCHANAMA DATED ON`	`NUMBER 1`
	`17/04/2022`	`RUPALI` `RAGHUNATH` `KASEKAR @` `RIDDHI PARESH` `BHINGARDE`
`TOTA`	`L RECOVERY FROM ACCUSED`	`N0 1`	`1,00,000/-`
`TOTA`	`L RECOVERY FROM ACCUSED`	`NOS. 7,9,1`	`1,71,22,077.00`

¶57

ACCUSED RELEASED ON BAIL AND THEIR RECOVERY

¶58

`SR.` `NO`	`ACCUSED` `NUMBERS`	`AMOUNT`	`RECOVERY`	`BAIL` `GRANTED` `ON`	`GRANTED` `BY`	`PAGE` `NUMBER`
`1`	`ACCUSED NO. 2` `RAJANISH` `RAJENDRA TAKLE`	`12,03,715/-`	`NIL`	`16/12/2022`	`LD JMFC` `COURT`	`66-68`
`2`	`ACCCUSED` `NUMBER 3` `PRIYANKA BALAJI` `PAWAR`	`1,00,50,000` `/-`	`NIL`	`16/12/2022`	`LD JMFC` `COURT`	`66-68`
`3`	`ACCUSED` `NUMBER 4` `MANGESH` `VINAYAK LAD`	`9.00,000/-`	`NIL`	`16/12/2022`	`LD JMFC` `COURT`	`66-68`
`4`	`ACCUSED` `NUMBER 5` `SADEEP SURESH` `AMBURLE`	`70,00,000/-`	`NIL`	`16/12/2022`	`LD JMFC` `COURT`	`66-68`
`5`	`ACCUSED` `NUMBER 6` `PRAVIN DILIP` `BHISE`	`40,00,000/-`	`TWO CARS` `WORTH RS` `6,00,000/-`	`16/12/2022`	`LD JMFC` `COURT`	`66-68`
`6`	`ACCUSED` `NUMBER 9`	`3,90,000/-`	`FLAT` `WORTH RS`	`10/11/2023`	`LD` `SESSION`	`855-865`
	`PARESH PRAMOD`		`47,25,`		`COURT`

¶59

Page 9 of 13

¶60

Sonali

¶61

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶62

`BHINGARDE`	`493/-`	`CHIPLUN`
	`GOLD`
	`2,50,000/-`
	`( SEIZURE`
	`PROCEDUR`
	`E IS ON`
	`GOING BY`
	`IO)`

¶63

8.Ms. Kaushik, learned APP has verified the above chart and
submitted that the said chart is correct. Thus, it is clear that almost
the entire amount which was deposited in the account of Accused
No.1 i.e. the present Applicant has been recovered. The Applicant
is a young woman having a child aged 13 months.

¶64

9. Accused Nos.2 to 6 who are having the same role as that of the Applicant, were released on bail by the learned Trial Court by Order dated 16^th December 2022.

¶65

10.Perusal of the record shows that the incident in question
occurred between 20th October 2020 to 13th September 2022, F.I.R.
was lodged on 1st December 2022. Applicant was arrested on 12th
April 2023 and Charge-sheet was filed on 31st January 2023 and
the Supplementary Charge-sheet was filed on 10th May 2023. Thus,

¶66

Page 10 of 13

¶67

Sonali

¶68

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶69

investigation is complete. The trial is unlikely to conclude any time
soon and is likely to take a considerably long time.

¶70

11. The Applicant is lady having a child aged 13 months.

¶71

12. There are no criminal antecedents against the present Applicant.

¶72

13. The Applicant does not appear to be at risk of flight.

¶73

14. Accordingly, the Applicant can be enlarged on bail by

¶74

imposing conditions.

¶75

15. In view thereof, the following order:-

¶76

O R D E R

¶77

(a)The Applicant - Rupali Raghunath Kasekar alias
Riddhi Paresh Bhingarde be released on bail in
connection with C.R. No.379 of 2022 registered with
the Chiplun Police Station, Taluka - Chiplun, District -
Ratnagiri on her furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/-

¶78

Page 11 of 13

¶79

Sonali

¶80

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶81

with one or two local solventsureties in the like
amount.

¶82

(b) On being released on bail, the Applicant shall furnish her cell phone number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated, in case of any change thereto.

¶83

(c) The Applicant shall report to the Chiplun Police Station, Taluka - Chiplun, District - Ratnagiri as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

¶84

(d)The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade
such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or
to any Police personnel.

¶85

(e) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not contact or influence the Complainant or any witness in any manner.

¶86

Page 12 of 13

¶87

Sonali

¶88

502-BA-929-2024- MODIFIED.DOC

¶89

(f) The Applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The

¶90

Applicant shall co-operate with the Trial Court and

¶91

shall not seek unnecessary adjournments thereat.

¶92

(g) The Applicant shall surrender her Passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer.

¶93

16. The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶94

17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are prima

¶95

facie, and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶96

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶97

Note: This order is corrected as per Speaking to the Minutes Order
dated 8th April 2024.

¶98

Signed by: Sonali Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/04/2024 19:26:18 Sonali

¶99

Page 13 of 13

Rupali Raghunath Kasekar @ Mrs. Riddhi Paresh Bhingarde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupali Raghunath Kasekar @ Mrs. Riddhi Paresh Bhingarde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atlas Copco (India) Limited (Now Known as Epiroc Mining India Limited) vs Prakash Govind Sane

Bandenawaj Gafur Mujawar Vs State of Maharashtra

Nagina Samir Mujawar Vs State of Maharashtra

Atlas Copco (India) Limited (Now Known as Epiroc Mining India Limited) vs Prakash Govind Sane

V Nainar vs the State of Maharashtra through Deputy Registrar

Alpesh B. Sondgar Vs State of Maharashtra