Regular bail sought in two FIRs against a director of a multi-state co-operative society for cheating and defalcation under IPC and the MPID Act. Court found huge loans disbursed to her illegally, audit objections, multiple pending offences, and no parity with differently placed co-accused. Bail applications rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:BHC-AUG:18270
1 2266 / 2025 +
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2266 OF 2025
Premlata Badrinarayan Baheti .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2268 OF 2025
Premlata Badrinarayan Baheti .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
... Advocate for applicant : Mr. Pratik Tare (Through V.C.) h/f. Mr. Sagar P. Mahale, in both BAs APP for the respondent – State : Mrs. P.V. Diggikar (2266/2025) APP for the respondent – State : Mr. C.V. Bhadane (2268/2025)
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 17 APRIL 2026
PER COURT :
Heard both sides.
2024 registered with Udgir City Police Station, District – Latur for the offences punishable under section 406, 409, 420, 120_B r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 of the M.P.I.D. Act and in CR
2 2266 / 2025 +
No. 180 of 2024 registered with Jawaharnagar Police Station, District – Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under section 406, 409, 420, 120-B, r/w. 34 of the IPC and under section 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act.
3 2266 / 2025 +
Office bearers. During the course of investigation, it revealed that Office bearers caused financial loss to various persons. The total defalcation runs in Crores. The audit report would further corroborate the incriminating role against each of the Officer bearers.
4 2266 / 2025 +
account no. 0062. It was having following objections :-
| Sr, No. |
A/c No. |
Type of Loan |
Borrower Name | Loan Sanctioned Amount |
Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0062 | Term Loan | Mrs. Premlata Badrinarayan Baheti |
4,12,23,874 | 1) Borrower is one of the Director on the board of society. 2) No action taken against the borrower for non-payment since last 5 years 3) Registered value of the property (said land) is Rs.2,28,00,000 as on the date of disbursement of loan i.e. 100% loan disbursed for the value of security offered. 4) Though there is NO NPA norms listed for Multi state societies but as per accounting principles there is no provision made for Bad debts in the earlier years and current year also. |
| 5) Search report is also not on the record. |
5 2266 / 2025 +
offences pending against the applicant :-
| Sr. No. |
CR No. | Police Station | Punishable under section | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 227 / 2024 | Ambajogai Rural | 34, 406, 409, 415, 420, 467 IPC and section 3, 4 of MPID Act |
Bail granted | |
| 2 | 74 / 2024 | Parali Town | 120-B, 406, 409, 420 of IPC and section 3, 4 of MPID Act |
Custody not sought by the IO |
|
| 3 | 225 / 2024 | Shirsala | 34, 120-B, 406, 409, 420 of IPC and section 3, 4 of MPID Act |
Custody not sought by the IO |
|
| 4 | 274 / 2024 | Ambajogai Town | 34, 406, 409, 415, 420, 467 of IPC and section 3, 4 and 5 of MPID Act |
Custody not sought by the IO |
|
| 5 | 280 / 2024 | Beed Town | 34, 406, 409, 420 of IPC and section 3, 4 of MPID Act |
Custody not sought by the IO |
|
| 6 | 180 / 2024 | Jawaharnagar P.S Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar |
. at | 34, 120-B, 406, 409, 420 of IPC and section 3, 4 of MPID Act |
Bail Rejected |
| 7 | 498 / 2024 | Omerga | 61(2), 318(4), 316(5), 316(2) of BNS and section 3, 4 of MPID Act |
Bail Granted | |
| 8 | 234 / 2024 | Gandhi Chowki Latur |
PS, | 34, 406, 409, 420 of IPC and section 3 of MPID Act |
Custody not sought by the IO |
| 9 | 148 / 2024 | Udgir Town | 34, 120-B, 406, 409, 420 of IPC and section 3 of MPID Act |
Bail Rejected | |
| 10 | 288 / 2024 | Vazirabad Nanded |
PS, | 34, 406, 409, 420 of IPC and section 3 of MPID Act |
Bail Granted |
| 11 | 451 / 2025 | Gangakhed | 34, 120-B, 406, 409, 420 of IPC and section 3, 4 of MPID Act |
Bail Granted | |
| 12 | 328 / 2025 | Nanalpeth Parbhani |
PS | 120-B, 406, 409, 420 of IPC and section 3, 4 of MPID Act |
Bail Granted |
| 13 | 26 / 2025 | Pandharpur Town | 3(5), 316(5), 316(2), 318(4) of BNS and section 3, 4 of MPID Act |
Custody not sought by the IO |
|
| 14 | 320 / 2024 | Bitergaon Yavatmal |
PS | 34, 406, 409, 420 of IPC and section 3 of MPID Act |
Bail Application Pending |
| 15 | 682 / 2024 | Omerkhed Yavatmal |
PS, | 406, 409, 420 of IPC and section 3 of MPID Act |
Custody not sought by the IO |
6 2266 / 2025 +
elected Director from from 2022 to 2023 or 2023 to 2028. He is shown to have resigned. The facts are distinguishable. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to receive benefit of parity.
OnLine SC 211 , are relevant, which are as follows :-
“ 19. Though the observations made in some of the above cases were in the context of heinous offences, which is not the case presently, we may note that the value of life and liberty of members of society is not limited only to their 'person' but would also extend to the quality of their life, including their economic well-being. In offences of a pecuniary nature, where innocent people are cheated of their hard-earned monies by conmen, who make it their life's pursuit to exploit and feast upon the gullibility of others, the aforestated factors must necessarily be weighed while dealing with the alleged offenders' pleas for grant of bail.”
rejected.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] JUDGE
arp/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in two MPID-related cheating cases involving alleged defalcation by office bearers of a multi-state co-operative society.
Whether the applicant is entitled to parity with co-accused who were granted bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pai Gupta alias Sonu Chaudhary and anotherRelied on¶13
Rakesh Mittal V. Ajay Pai Gupta alias Sonu Chaudhary and another; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 211 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Premlata Badrinarayan Baheti
The State of Maharashtra
Shailesh P. Brahme
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
