Rupali Vilas Londhe vs State of Maharashtra

This is a 3^rd pre arrest bail application filed by the applicant. Applicant, who apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No.89/2023, registered with Dindoshi Police station for the offence punishable under Sections 406,420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.3 and 4 of MPID Act, has filed this application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶10

As per the complaint filed, an FIR has been lodged. The role of the present applicant has been specifically mentioned in the FIR.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present 3^rd pre-arrest bail application has been filed since there is

1

Harish

16-ABA-457-2025.doc

change in circumstances. On instructions, he submits that the applicant is ready to deposit some amount in this Court. Therefore, this can be considered as change circumstances. The applicant is a lady, who has not played any role in the crime. On instructions of her husband, she has signed certain papers. The husband of the applicant was arrested and has been granted regular bail. As per the prosecution’s case in the FIR, the total amount involved in the crime was Rs.22,00,000/- and in the argument made by the prosecution before the Sessions Court, the total amount of cheating committed by the applicant is approximately Rs.33,00,000/-. However, in the charge-sheet, the amount is mentioned as Rs.50,34,820/-. The applicant is ready to co-operate with the police. The charge-sheet has already been filed against the present applicant. Therefore, the custody of the present applicant is not necessary in order to complete the investigation.

¶16

The learned APP submits that depositing some amount by the applicant would not be a ground to entertain 3^rd pre-arrest bail application, since this will not amount to change circumstances. He submits that up-till now, 18 victims have been approached the investigating officer and the amount involved is around Rs.50,34,820/-. If the applicant’s husband is ready to deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-, then the applicant should deposit the balance amount of Rs.40,00,000/before this Court to show her bonafides. He submits that this an MPID

2

Harish

16-ABA-457-2025.doc

case and the amount involved is likely to rise further. He submits that after deceiving the victims, the collected monies from the victims, were transferred by the applicant to their own company. He submits that the applicant has already sold all their assets. Therefore, it is difficult for the prosecution to take steps against the properties owned by the applicant. This Court has earlier twice rejected the pre-arrest bail application of the applicant on the ground of applicant after being heard, desired to withdraw the pre-arrest bail application.

¶21

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and have gone through the documents produced on record.

¶22

This is a 3^rd pre-arrest bail application filed by applicant before this Court. This being a MPID case and the amount involved in the crime is bound to rise further. The case of the prosecution that the amount is to be first collected by the company of the applicant and then the said amount was transferred by the applicant and her husband to their individual bank accounts. The applicant without admitting her guilt, is ready to deposit some amount in this Court. According to me, this will not help the present applicant, even if, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is presumed to be paid by the husband of the applicant. In fact, this is not a forum to recovery dues. But to show her bonafides, the applicant without prejudice should be ready to deposit a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- before this Court. The applicant is not ready to deposit a

3

Harish

16-ABA-457-2025.doc

sum of Rs.40,00,000/- in this Court. As of now, there are 18 victims in the present crime. Twice, the pre-arrest bail application filed before this Court by the present applicant, has been withdrawn. Applicant is not able to show any change in circumstances.

¶27

Therefore, according to me, no case is made out to grant any interim protection to the present applicant. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application stands rejected .

¶28

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶29

Signed by: Harish V. Chaudhari Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/04/2025 14:47:38 Harish

¶30

4

Rupali Vilas Londhe v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupali Vilas Londhe v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Srinder Pal Singh Arneja vs State of Maharashtra

Deepali Shekhar Garade vs State of Maharashtra

Madan Krishnaji Vaze and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yogita Sanjay Wagh vs the State of Maharashtra

Suryawanshi Ishwar Baburao vs State of Maharashtra

Madan Krishnaji Vaze and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.