Siyya W/O Rahul Chandnani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

2] The applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.0934/2023, registered at Hingoli City Police Station, District Hingoli, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 408, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, 1999.

¶51

3] This court by order dated 09.02.2024, 20.02.2024, 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 granted interim protection to the applicants.

¶52

4] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that thereafter the applicants have cooperated with the investigation.

¶53

4

¶54

956

¶55

5] From the FIR and from the investigation so far, it appears that one Kharjule family was in control of Kulswamini Mahila Urban Co-operative Society, wherein the President, Vice-President, Secretary and two of the Directors belong to one family. It is stated that the loans were sanctioned on the basis of the fabricated documents by Kharjule family to it’s own family members. It is also stated that the Kharjule family took loans of about Rs.6,21,00,000/- approximately. The total outstanding amount till today, which the society needs to repay to the depositors is about Rs.10,68,00,000/- approximately.

¶56

6] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that all the applicants herein are ladies.

¶57

7] It is also stated by the learned APP that various amounts were withdrawn by cash from the accounts of the society by the Kharjule family. The applicants are not connected with the Kharjule family. The applicants are the ladies living in the nearby vicinity, who are appointed as Directors.

¶58

8] The learned counsel submits that the applicants did not understand their nature of appointments and they have not consciously functioned as Directors. The learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants are the housewives and have not benefited from

¶59

5

¶60

956

¶61

any of the transactions, so also, the applicants’ family members have not benefited from the sanctioned loans.

¶62

9] The learned APP submits that the applicants are jointly responsible as they are signatories to the sanctioned loans.

¶63

10] After granting interim protection to the applicants the applicants have cooperated with the investigation. There is no evidence that the applicants have benefited out of the loans sanctioned to the Kharjule family members. Considering the same, since, there is no specific role of the applicants towards the active participation in the fraud committed by Kharjule family and they being ladies, the interim protection granted earlier can be confirmed.

¶64

11] In view of the above, the interim protection granted by orders dated 09.02.2024, 20.02.2024, 23.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 stands confirmed, on the following terms:

¶65

i] The applicants shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶66

ii] The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. They shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

¶67

956

¶68

6

¶69

iii] The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.

¶70

12] In the event, the applicants violate any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶71

13] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail applications and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

¶72

14] The Anticipatory Bail Applications stand disposed of.

¶73

15] Criminal Application No.1289 of 2024 stands disposed of.

¶74

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

¶75

marathe

Siyya W/O Rahul Chandnani v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siyya W/O Rahul Chandnani v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pathan Sarfaraj Khan Ahmad Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dnyaneshwar Bapurao Chavan Vs Jagdish Dilip Raut and Another

Ansar Saleem Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Alka W/O Santosh Khandare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anju W/O Sudhir Katke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shital W/O Mangesh Lolge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another