Allowed¶25

Mrs Sunita Narayanrao Lonare v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Feb 2025BA/604/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

regular bail; Bombay High Court; Criminal Bail Application 604 of 2024; Sunita N. Lonare; State of Maharashtra; Crime No.69 of 2004; Panvel Police Station; Navi Mumbai; Raigad; Sections 406 420 120(B) IPC; cheating; criminal breach of trust; conspiracy; Section 3 MPID Act 1999; Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act; Adhunik Bhoo-Vikas Aani Gruhnirman Vittiya Company Limited; non-banking finance company; investment scheme; defrauded Rs.70,87,384; five years in jail; trial not commenced; absconding 15 years; P.R. Bond Rs.25,000; EOW CID Pune.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in Crime No.69 of 2004 (Panvel 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; application disposed of accordingly. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail in Crime No.69 of 2004 registered at Panvel Police Station, Navi Mumbai, Dist. Raigad. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed.

¶24

Key takeaways

The applicant is to be released on bail in Crime No.69 of 2004 on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Criminal Bail Application No. 604 of 2024 — Sunita N. Lonare v. The State of Maharashtra: regular bail granted. The applicant, arrested in Crime No.69 of 2004 of Panvel Police Station, Navi Mumbai (Dist. Raigad), faced charges under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. The prosecution alleged she was a Director of Adhunik Bhoo-Vikas Aani Gruhnirman Vittiya Company Limited (a non-banking finance company) whose investment scheme induced investors who were defrauded of Rs.70,87,384/-. Counsel for the applicant submitted 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 yet to commence; the learned APP opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had been absconding for about 15 years. Finding the five-year incarceration undisputed and weighing the overall facts and circumstances, the Court allowed the application and directed release on a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶1

1-BA-604-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 604 OF 2024

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

P.C.:

¶7

This is an application for regular bail.

¶8

The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No.69 of

¶9

2004 registered at Panvel 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.

¶10

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-604-2024.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/-.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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-604-2024.doc

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

¶22

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.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

(i) The Application is allowed.

¶25

(ii) The applicant be released on bail in Crime No.69 of 2004 registered at Panvel 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.

¶26

3 of 3

¶27

Sajakali Jamadar

Mrs Sunita Narayanrao Lonare v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Sunita Narayanrao Lonare v. State of Maharashtra

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

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shuaib Qamar Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivaji Sopan Nanvare vs State of Maharashtra through Solapur Taluka Police Station and Ors.

Sushila Tulsankar and Ors. vs the State of Maharasthra and Anr.

Chetan Balu Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Mrs Sunita Narayanrao Lonare vs State of Maharashtra

Shreeram Pacharam Bishnoi vs the State of Maharashtra