SONALI ARUN GAWANDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                -1-
                                                      ba2523.25.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          980 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2523 OF 2025 WITH
             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 648 OF 2026
                        IN BA/2523/2025

Ashwini Bharat Pund                             ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                        …..Respondent

Mr. A. R. Nimbalkar, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. D. B. Bhange, APP for the State.
Mr. Ajit Chormal, Advocate for the Informant.

                              CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                              DATE  : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.      Learned Counsel Mr. Chormal seeks permission to assist

learned APP.



2.    Permission granted.     Criminal Application No. 648/2026

stands allowed.



3.    This application is preferred by the Applicant seeking regular

bail in connection with Crime No. 667/2024 registered with MIDC

Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under

Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and
                                   -2-
                                                         ba2523.25.odt

Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in

Financial Establishments) Act.



4.    The case of prosecution is that on the basis of a report lodged

by Rohidas Sadashiv Jadhav, the crime came to be registered against

the Chairman, Directors and officers of M/s Bhagyalaxmi Multistate

Co-operative Credit Society, branch office at Jeur, Taluka Nagar. It is

alleged that the accused persons induced depositors to invest money

by promising high returns, but failed to repay the deposits along with

interest upon maturity. It is further alleged that on 26.08.2024 the

said branch office was closed and the Chairman, Directors, and staff

absconded.       According    to    the   prosecution,   the   accused

misappropriated an amount of Rs. 54,77,89,291/-.



5.    Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that the Applicant is

falsely implicated in the crime. Except she being the Vice-Chirman of

the society, no role is attributed against her.   She has no concern

with the affairs of the society.     The entire case is based on the

documentary evidence which is available in the bank. Investigation in

the crime is complete and charge-sheet is filed. Applicant is behind
                                 -3-
                                                       ba2523.25.odt

the bars for a period of more than one year. Further, the co-accused

are enlarged on bail. Hence, prayed to enlarged the Applicant on bail.



6.      Per contra, learned APP and learned Counsel for the informant

vehemently opposed the application submitting that the Applicant is

involved in serious crime. Hard earned money of the depositors as

well as other investors is misappropriated. The Applicant has actively

participated in commission of crime. Hence, prayed for rejection of

the application.



7.      Upon going through the First Information Report, it is prima

facie evident that the name of the present Applicant is specifically

mentioned by the informant along with other co-accused alleging

false promise of giving high rate of return and inducting the

informant and other depositors to invest their money in various

schemes of the society and later on, failed to make repayment of the

same.



8.      Prima facie, it appears that the Applicant being the Vice

Chairman of the society being held responsible for conducting the

business of the bank. As such, she is responsible for the act of mis-
                                 -4-
                                                         ba2523.25.odt

appropriation as contemplated in Section 3 of the MPID Act.

Moreover, an amount of Rs. 1,41,87,000/- has been transferred from

society’s bank account to the personal bank account of the

Applicant. The present Applicant has proactively participated in the

commission of offence, while siphoning the amounts deposited by the

small investors.



9.     The essential ingredients of Section 409 of the IPC are

threefold:-

i)     There must be entrustment of property or dominion over

property by the accused;

ii)    The accused must be acting in the capacity of a banker,

merchant, broker, attorney or agent; and

iii)   There must be dishonest misappropriation or conversion of

such property for his own use, or disposal of it in violation of the law

or the contract governing such entrustment.



10.    The record clearly indicates that several small investors

entrusted their hard-earned money to the Applicant and his

associates through the Bank. This entrustment was made based on

specific representations, resulting in a relationship that extended
                                   -5-
                                                            ba2523.25.odt

beyond a mere commercial contract. The investors/depositors placed

their money in the custody of the Applicant in a fiduciary capacity;

consequently, the Applicant was under a legal obligation to ensure

the safety of the funds and to provide the promised returns on such

investments.       Thus,   the   evidence   unequivocally   satisfies   the

requirements for the offence of criminal breach of trust.



11.   The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Y.S. Jagaon Mohan

Reddy vs. CBI [(2013) 7 SCC 439], has held that economic offences

involving deep-rooted conspiracies and the massive diversion of

public money stand on a different footing. Such offences seriously

affect the national economy and erode the trust of the common man

in financial systems.



12.   The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar Vs.

Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement [(2024)13 SCC 788],

held as under :-



        “22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of
        decisions, the economic offences constitute a class
        apart and need to be visited with a different approach
                                -6-
                                                             ba2523.25.odt

in the matter of bail. The economic offences having
deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the economy of
the country as a whole and thereby posing serious
threat   to      the    financial    health     of   the    country.
Undoubtedly,           economic      offences        have    serious
repercussions on the development of the country as a
whole. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S.
Jagan       Mohan       Reddy       vs.   Central      Bureau     of
Investigation8,        Nimmagadda         Prasad      vs.   Central
Bureau      of     Investigation9,        Gautam       Kundu     vs.
Directorate of Enforcement (supra), State of Bihar and
Another vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai10. This
court taking a serious note with regard to the
economic offences had observed as back as in 1987 in
case of State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal
and Another11 as under:-


         “5… The entire community is aggrieved if the
economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State
are   not     brought      to books.       A murder may          be
committed in the heat of moment upon passions
being aroused. An economic offence is committed with
cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on
personal profit regardless of the consequence to the
community. A disregard for the interest of the
community can be manifested only at the cost of
                                    -7-
                                                            ba2523.25.odt

       forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the
       system to administer justice in an even-handed
       manner without fear of criticism from the quarters
       which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye
       unmindful of the damage done to the National
       Economy and National Interest…”


       23. With the advancement of technology and Artificial
       Intelligence,    the   economic    offences   like   money
       laundering have become a real threat                 to the
       functioning of the financial system of the country and
       have become a great challenge for the investigating
       agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate
       nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons
       involved therein. Lot of minute exercise is expected to
       be undertaken by the Investigating Agency to see that
       no innocent person is wrongly booked and that no
       culprit escapes from the clutches of the law. When the
       detention of the accused is continued by the Court,
       the courts are also expected to conclude the trials
       within a reasonable time, further ensuring the right
       of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the
       Constitution.”



13.   In view of the aforesaid circumstances and considering the

material on record, the evidence prima facie establishes the

entrustment   of   money,     its   dishonest   misappropriation,    and
                                   -8-
                                                             ba2523.25.odt

fraudulent intention on the part of the Applicant. Therefore, I am of

the considered opinion that the prosecution has made out a strong

prima facie case for the commission of an offence under Section 316

of the BNS which is punishable for 10 years or life, along with the

fine.



14.     So far as the ground of parity, it can be significant factor for

granting bail, even at this stage and despite the bail applications of

co-accused being allowed, the Court must satisfy itself that sufficient

grounds exist for Applicant’s release.        This determination must be

based     on   a   consideration   of   the   materials   placed,   further

developments in the investigation, and other relevant factors.



15.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case is made out to

grant bail to the Applicant.



16.     Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.



                                               (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

dyb