Bombay High Court
RAJASHREE RAJESH TUDAYEKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered an application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by Rajashree Rajesh Tudayekar, who was arrested in connection with a cheating case involving alleged misappropriation of Rs.4 lakh invested by a complainant and alleged collection of Rs.55 lakh from other depositors. The FIR alleged offences under IPC sections 406, 409, 420 and the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999. The applicant argued she had no direct involvement, had already refunded Rs.5.65 lakh, and highlighted her social work background, awards, and the need to care for two minor daughters. The prosecution contended a prima facie case of misappropriation but did not produce detailed evidence. The Court, noting the applicant's lack of direct culpability, her financial means, and humanitarian considerations, held that bail should be granted subject to strict conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 despite the pending charges of cheating and deposit fraud.
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case warranting continued custodial interrogation.
- Whether the applicant's personal circumstances (gender, minor children, social contributions) justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 409, 420
- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- BNSS
- IPC
- cheating
- depositors act
- women
- minor children
- custodial interrogation
- conditions of bail
Judgment
BA.3480.2026.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3480 OF 2026
Rajashree Rajesh Tudayekar .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Vijay Salve, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent – State.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Salve, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail
in connection with C.R.No.2 of 2026 registered with Shivajinagar
Police Station, District Pune for offences punishable under Sections
406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999.
3. Applicant is a woman 40 years of age. She has been indicted in
a crime which is registered by the Complainant with regard to certain
investments made by the Complainant for prospective gains. According
to the prosecution case, FIR is lodged by Complainant on the ground
that Complainant had invested an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs in the
1 of 8
BA.3480.2026.odt
Company called Royal Trading Company at the behest of one of his
friends . It is Complainant’s case that one Mr. Suresh Jadhav, a friend
of Complainant who is in the business of cryptocurrency trading,
introduced the Complainant to Royal Trading company and the
Complainant was induced that he will get handsome returns on his
investments by one Mr. Akshay. On the say of Mr. Suresh Jadhav and
Mr. Akshay, Complainant invested Rs.4 Lakhs with Royal Trading
Company. It is the Complainant’s case that he was paid returns of
Rs.1,74,000/- on his investment, but thereafter the returns were not
paid and therefore an amount of Rs.2,26,000/- remained unpaid,
hence case of cheating is filed which is the subject matter of the FIR
registered. Pursuant to registration of the FIR, Applicant is arrested
from her residence in Belgaum, Karnataka.
4. Prima facie perusal of the FIR before me shows that there is a
clear dichotomy therein. It is stated in the FIR that Applicant was
concerned with taking the loan amounts in the form of gold loan. Case
of Applicant before me is that she is not connected with the said crime
and incongruity in the statement with regard to the amounts
belonging to the Complainant having been refunded is placed on
record whereby it is seen that Applicant has already refunded an
amount of Rs.5,65,000/- to the Complainant. The Complainant is a
social worker.
2 of 8
BA.3480.2026.odt
5. Insofar as the Applicant is concerned, it is her case that she has
been working in the social field for more than 20 years and her
credentials are impeccable. Applicant is a doctorate holder in social
work from Royal America University and her body of work shows that
she has adopted 40 needy, indigent and necessity - related families
who are completely dependent on her. It is seen that Applicant is a
meritorious awardee and has got various awards like the International
Business Excellence Award 2022, Pradhanmantri Aatmanirbhar Bharat
Abhiyan Samman, Proud Indian Parliament Award 2022, Young
Achiever Award 2021, Doctorate of Royal American University,
Mahatma Gandhi International Virtual University Award, London Book
of Record 2022 Award and she has donated essential and vital things
like necessities of life to various needy families. It is also on record
that Applicant has donated computers, school instruments to various
schools for students. Applicant is having two small daughters who are
minor and below 5 years of age and for the past 42 days 43 days,
Applicant has been incarcerated in prison since 06.08.2026.
6. Mr. Nakhwa, learned Prosecutor has taken instructions pursuant
to the previous order passed by this Court with regard to the deposits
received by Applicant. He would submit that Applicant has collected
an amount of Rs.55 Lakhs through her company called Rajashree
3 of 8
BA.3480.2026.odt
Agriventures Co. which has been investigated by the prosecution after
recording statements of 15 such investors.
7. Applicant before me has deep roots in society which is prima
facie seen from the material which is placed on record before me.
Merely because the prosecution claims that Applicant has collected
Rs.55 lakhs through her company called Rajashree Agriventures Co.
and still she will not make it good, then the investigation has to be
proceeded in that regard. That is not done. Rather a knee jerk reaction
of arresting the Applicant is initiated.
8. The learned Advocate appearing for Applicant informs the Court
that the Applicant is a person of means and has substantial properties
worth crores of rupees belonging to her. If this is the case, then the
prosecution can undoubtedly attach the properties to the extent of the
amounts received by her provided they can make out a prima facie
case against her and provided there is enough material with the
prosecution to do so. From the FIR itself, it is prima facie seen that the
Complainant was enticed by his friend Suresh Jadhav and one Mr.
Akshay and not the Applicant. Applicant is a permanent resident of
Hindalga, Belgaum, Karnataka. According to the investigation which
has been carried out, as stated by Mr. Nakhwa, at the highest,
Applicant can be indicted for receiving the amount of Rs.55 Lakhs
from 15 depositors, the details of which are not even placed before the
4 of 8
BA.3480.2026.odt
Court. In such circumstances, necessity of Applicant's custodial
interrogation is not at all required, when her Advocate states on
instructions that she will participate in the enquiry.
9. Insofar as the case in question is concerned that solely pertains
to the Complainant before the prosecution who has alleged to have
deposited an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs as alluded to hereinabove. The
learned Trial Court has rejected her Bail Application on the premise
that merely because Applicant is a woman and she is ready to deposit
the amount, it cannot be considered as a ground for enlarging the
Applicant. Insofar as investigation is concerned, Mr. Nakhwa would
submit that Applicant will have to cooperate with the investigation. If
that is the case, Applicant can undoubtedly be put to strict terms.
10. Considering the background of Applicant and the achievements
of the Applicant which are prima facie seen from the record of the
case, I am of the opinion that Applicant has made out a case for grant
of bail. As also, Applicant has two minor daughters below 5 years to
whom she is required to provide care and support.
11. Needless to state that Applicant shall be put to appropriate
terms for requiring her cooperation. It is prima facie seen that
Applicant is directed to ensure that she will cooperate with the
prosecution with regard to the investigation that has been done by the
5 of 8
BA.3480.2026.odt
prosecution. It is prima facie seen that Applicant has been roped in
because she is the CMD of a Company called Rajashree Agri Venture
Company. According to the prosecution case, the deposits made by the
depositors are sought to be invested in the said Company. However, it
is prima facie seen from the statement which has been recorded on
17.09.2026 of one Mr. Vithal Pratap Patil that the entrustment for
deposit of the amounts has been made by third parties and not directly
by the depositors to the Applicant. Case of the prosecution is that the
monies have been deposited in the Company belonging to Applicant.
To the extent of the money which have been deposited with the
Applicant, Applicant is directed to cooperate with the investigation
and give her disclosure statement fully.
12. Insofar as custodial interrogation of Applicant is concerned, the
same is not at all required. In the above circumstances, Applicant has
made out a case for grant of bail.
13. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and findings,
Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms
and conditions:-
(i) Applicant – Rajashree Rajesh Tudayekar is directed to
be immediately released from prison in connection with
CR. No.2 of 2026;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
6 of 8
BA.3480.2026.odt
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Shivajinagar Police Station, once every month, on the
first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
noon until commencement of trial and as and when
called for with 2 days prior notice to Applicant and
thereafter shall attend all dates of hearing before the
Trial Court;
(iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial
and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates,
unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek
unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall
entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the Trial Court and she shall deposit her
passport with the Trial Court within 2 weeks from the
date of her release from jail;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
7 of 8
BA.3480.2026.odt
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of her current residential address and mobile telephone
number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating
Officer of any change in her residential address or
mobile telephone number, as and when such change
occurs; and
(viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted
to the Applicant.
14. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited
for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
15. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.09.22
12:21:38
+0530
8 of 8
Checking your session…