Mrs Sunita Narayanrao Lonare vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

Mrs Sunita Narayanrao Lonare vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail in Crime No.25 of 2003 registered at Pali Police Station, Navi Mumbai, Dist. Raigad, on furnishing P.R Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arrested in Crime No.25 of 2003 (Pali Police Station, Navi Mumbai, Dist. Raigad) for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) IPC and Section 3 of the MPID Act, 1999, should be released on regular bail, given her five-year incarceration, non-commencement of trial, other directors being on bail, and the prosecution's objection based on her alleged 15-year absence.

Court's answer

The fact that the applicant is in jail for five years was not disputed; considering the overall facts and circumstances, the court was inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was directed to be released on bail in Crime No.25 of 2003 on furnishing a Personal Recognizance bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. R. Borkar, J.) allowed a regular bail application in Crime No.25 of 2003 (Pali Police Station, Navi Mumbai, Dist. Raigad) arising out of alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) IPC and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The applicant, arraigned as a former Director of Adhunik Bhoo-Vikas Aani Gruhnirman Vittiya Company Limited (an NBFC) which allegedly ran a lucrative investment scheme whereby the complainant and other investors were defrauded of Rs.70,87,384/-, sought bail on the ground (per counsel) that she was Director for barely one year (25 April 1998 to 1 April 1999), all other Directors were on bail, she had been in jail for five years, and the trial had not commenced; the State opposed on the ground that she had been absconding for about 15 years. The court held that the five-year incarceration was undisputed and, considering the overall facts and circumstances, released the applicant on bail on a P.R Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

1-BA-602-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 602 OF 2024

Sunita N. Lonare ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

Mr. Abhishek S. Samdekar for the Applicant. Mrs. Geeta P. Mulekar, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Lahane (P.I.), EOW, CID, Pune present.

P.C.:

This is an application for regular bail.

The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No.25 of

2003 registered at Pali Police Station, Navi Mumbai, Dist. Raigad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant was a Director of Adhunik Bhoo-Vikas Aani

1 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar

1-BA-602-2024.doc

Gruhnirman Vittiya Company Limited (a non-banking finance company). It is alleged that said company had offered lucrative investment scheme. The allegations against the present applicant and other directors, who are co-accused in the present crime are that they induced the complainant and other investors to invest in the said scheme and defrauded them to the tune of Rs.70,87,384/-.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent – State.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was Director hardly for the period of one year, i.e., from 25 April 1998 to 1 April 1999. It is submitted that all other Directors are on bail. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail for five years and the trial has not commenced. It is thus, submitted that the applicant may be released on bail.

On the other hand, the learned APP for the Respondent-State submits that the applicant was absconding for about 15 years. It is submitted that considering the said fact the applicant may not be released on bail.

2 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar

1-BA-602-2024.doc

The fact that the applicant is in jail for five years is

not disputed. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. In the result, the following order is passed.

O R D E R

(i) The Application is allowed.

(ii) The applicant be released on bail in Crime No.25 of 2003 registered at Pali Police Station, Navi Mumbai, Dist. Raigad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, on furnishing P.R Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one or two sureties in the like amount. (iii) The stands disposed of accordingly.

(N. R. BORKAR, J.)

3 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar