MINAKSHI RAMESH VEDPATHAKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:44131


                                                                        CrAppln-3932-2026
                                                    -1-

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3932 OF 2026
                                       IN APPEAL/793/2026

                 Minakshi Ramesh Vedpathak
                 Age: 67 years, Occu.: Nil,
                 R/o.: Vidyanagar East, Beed,
                 District Beed.                                      ….Applicant

                       Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 (Through Investigating Officer,
                 Georai Police Station,
                 District Beed).                                     …..Respondent
                                                 …..
                 Mr. Nilesh S Ghanekar, Advocate for Applicant.
                 Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for Respondent.
                                                 .....

                                           CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                           Reserved on         : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026
                                           Pronounced on       : 29 SEPTEMBER, 2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.    Instant application is for suspension of sentence awarded in

                 Special Case ACB No.15 of 2015 by learned Additional Sessions

                 Judge, Beed dated 23.09.2026 for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)

                 (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act [for

                 short “P.C. Act”] and equally, prayer is raised for grant of bail also.
                                                      CrAppln-3932-2026
                                  -2-

2.    Learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that applicant

has been held guilty for above charges and she is sentenced for five

years imprisonment. That, as on today, she is 70 years of age. That,

there are allegations of demand and acceptance of Rs.1,000/-.

However, according to learned Counsel for the applicant, there is no

convincing evidence on the point of initial demand. The demand

verification panchanama is also silent on the point of demand.

Therefore, the demand itself is doubtful. He pointed out that it is

doubtful whether any work was pending with the accused, as the said

Bill i.e. Form No.52 bears the signatures of both complainant and the

accused. He further pointed out that the said amount was not a bribe

but was towards the expenses incurred for preparing the bill at a

private computer centre. That, apart from that there are vital

admissions and material omissions in the testimony of complainant.

Therefore, there are good grounds, but to be dealt in appeal,

however, as much more time would require to hear the appeal, relief

of suspension of sentence and grant of bail is urged for.


3.    Learned APP opposed the application by pointing out that here

case of prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That,

there is consistent evidence of complainant and shadow panch on the

point of demand. Shadow panch supports complainant's testimony
                                                     CrAppln-3932-2026
                                     -3-

and as recovery is proved, learned trial Court committed no error in

accepting the case of prosecution.


4.      Heard perused the papers. It appears that applicant, who was

working as Head Mistress in Zilla Parishad School, faced trial for

charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the

P. C. Act. Apparently, the trial commenced in the year 2015 and

concluded in the year 2026 i.e. almost after a lapse of more than a

decade. The applicant is currently said to be 70 years of age. Learned

Counsel for the applicant pointed out that apart from material

omissions and contradictions, initial demand itself is not proved, as

demand verification panchanama is silent on this point. If this is so,

the applicant has a good case on merits. However, the appeal, being

of the year 2026, may not be heard in the near future. Therefore, the

relief as prayed deserves to be granted. Hence, I proceed to pass the

following order:


                                 ORDER

I.    The Criminal Application is allowed.


II.   The substantive sentence imposed on the applicant - Minakshi
      Ramesh Vedpathak by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
      Beed in Special Case ACB No.15 of 2015 on 23.09.2026, stands
      suspended till the final hearing and disposal of Criminal Appeal
                                                         CrAppln-3932-2026
                                    -4-

      No.793 of 2026.


III. The applicant be released on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
      Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties in the like
      amount.


IV. The applicant shall not commit any criminal activity.


V.    The applicant shall remain present before the learned trial Judge
      once in six months, till final hearing and disposal of the appeal,
      commencing from the date he tenders bail papers and thereafter,
      the trial Judge to fix dates for his subsequent appearances.


VI. In case of two consecutive defaults on the part of the applicant to
      remain present before the trial court, the trial court to inform this
      court about the same and in that eventuality, the prosecution
      would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail
      granted to the applicant.


VII. Bail before the trial court.



                                             [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

scm