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

Release on bail in Crime No. 36 of 2005 (Rasayani Police Station, Navi Mumbai Dist. Raigad) on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arrested in Crime No. 36 of 2005 (Rasayani Police Station, Navi Mumbai Dist. Raigad) for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) IPC and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, should be released on regular bail, given that she has been in jail for five years with the trial not commenced, while the State opposes bail on the ground that she was absconding for about 15 years.

Court's answer

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

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 36 of 2005 registered at Rasayani Police Station, Navi Mumbai Dist. Raigad, on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Criminal Bail Application No. 603 of 2024 — Sunita N. Lonare v. The State of Maharashtra (N. R. Borkar, J.). Regular bail application by the applicant, arrested in Crime No. 36 of 2005 of Rasayani Police Station, Navi Mumbai (Dist. Raigad), for 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. Prosecution case: the applicant was Director of Adhunik Bhoo-Vikas Aani Gruhnirman Vittiya Company Limited (a non-banking finance company) which offered a lucrative investment scheme; she and the other directors allegedly induced the complainant and other investors to invest and defrauded them of Rs. 70,87,384/-. Counsel for the applicant submitted that she was Director only from 25 April 1998 to 1 April 1999, that all other Directors were on bail, and that she had been in jail for five years with the trial not commenced; the learned APP opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had been absconding for about 15 years. Held: the five-year incarceration was not disputed, and considering the overall facts and circumstances the applicant was released on bail on a P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; the application was allowed and disposed of accordingly.

1-BA-603-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 603 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.36 of

2005 registered at Rasayani 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 Director of Adhunik Bhoo-Vikas Aani

1 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar

1-BA-603-2024.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-603-2024.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.36 of 2005 registered at Rasayani 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 Application stands disposed of accordingly.

(N. R. BORKAR, J.)

3 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar