USHA GANESH MORE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38759
                                                                          BA-472-26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            BAIL APPLICATION NO.472 OF 2026

            1.   Usha Ganesh More
                 Age : 38 years, Occu. : Agri.,
                 R/o. Sundarnagar,
                 Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar

            2.   Sushila Rajendra Maske,
                 Age : 40 years, Occu. : Agri.,
                 R/o. Sundarnagar,
                 Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar                    … Applicants

                               Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through Vaijapur Police Station,
                 Tq. & Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar              … Respondent


                                              …..
            Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Hashmi
            Ubaid S. i/b. Mr. S. B. Bhosale, Advocate for Applicants
            Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for Respondent - State
                                              …..

                                   CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                   DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2026
            ORDER :-

            1.        The applicants, who are accused nos.2 and 3, seek regular bail

            under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

            in Crime No.321 of 2025 registered with Vaijapur Police Station. The

            charge-sheet alleges offences punishable under Sections 316(2),

            316(4), 316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of the

            Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra

            Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act,

            1999 and Sections 21 and 22 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit

                                                                               1 of 9
                                                              BA-472-26

Schemes Act, 2019. Their application below Exhibit 5 in Special Case

No.1 of 2026 was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Vaijapur on 12th February, 2026.


2.       The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that Shri Saibaba

Mahila Nagari Co-operative Patsanstha Limited opened its Vaijapur

branch on 14th November, 2022. The informant Krushna Diliprao

Dhule worked as a pigmy agent. On 14 th May, 2025, he presented

withdrawal requests aggregating to Rs.4.05 lakh on behalf of two

customers to the Branch Manager, Rustam alias Jeetu Dadasaheb

Matsagar. He was asked to return in the afternoon, but found the

branch closed. On the following day, the branch remained closed and

about 100 to 150 depositors had gathered outside. It was then alleged

that the society had closed its branch without repaying the depositors.

The FIR initially referred to deposits of about Rs.5.47 crore. The

charge-sheet   alleges   that   156   depositors   were   defrauded   of

approximately Rs.5.50 crore.


3.       The prosecution has charge-sheeted four persons. Accused

no.1 Ganesh Ramhari More is stated to be the founder and Chief

Executive Officer of the society. Applicant no.1 Usha Ganesh More is its

President and the wife of accused no.1. Applicant no.2 Sushila

Rajendra Mhaske is its Vice-President and the sister of applicant no.1.

Accused no.4 Rustam was the Branch Manager. The prosecution

alleges that deposits were mobilised by promising returns of 12% to

13% and that the money was thereafter diverted by granting



                                                                   2 of 9
                                                              BA-472-26

unsecured personal and cash-credit loans in the names of members of

the management and their relatives, without following the prescribed

safeguards. The charge-sheet refers to records allegedly bearing the

applicants' signatures and also reflects an outstanding loan of

approximately Rs.14.36 lakh in the name of applicant no.2.


4.       Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the FIR

was registered on 25th June, 2025 though the commencement of the

alleged occurrence is shown as 14th November, 2022. He submitted

that the applicants are women holding honorary posts and that the

affairs of the society were actually conducted by accused no.1 and the

Branch Manager. The applicants were arrested on 21 st November, 2025

and the charge-sheet was filed on 29 th December, 2025. All financial

records have been seized and nothing remains to be recovered from

them. It was further submitted that the statements recorded before

the Magistrate principally attribute the inducement and receipt of

deposits to accused no.1 and Rustam and do not disclose any

comparable operational act on the part of either applicant.


5.       Reliance was also placed on the order dated 20 th September,

2025 granting bail to Rustam in Bail Application No.1630 of 2025. It

was submitted that Rustam was the Manager responsible for the day-

to-day affairs, had approached villagers, promised higher returns,

accepted deposits and maintained the branch records. Reference was

also made to the interim protection earlier granted to Pooja Adinath

Navale. It was pointed out that the investigating agency ultimately did



                                                                  3 of 9
                                                               BA-472-26

not charge-sheet her. The applicants further rely upon absence of

antecedents, their permanent residence and the circumstance that

applicant no.1 has two school-going children while applicant no.2 is a

widow having a son studying in the 12th standard.


6.       Learned APP opposed the application. He submitted that the

applicants were founder office-bearers and cannot avoid responsibility

by describing themselves as mere rubber stamps. The prosecution

relies   upon   minutes   and   proceedings   allegedly   bearing   their

signatures, bank statements and transaction records which, according

to it, show credits exceeding Rs.50 lakh in the applicants' accounts,

apart from the outstanding loan shown against applicant no.2. It was

further submitted that several depositors have referred to the

President and Vice-President as persons participating in the affairs of

the society. The offence concerns the savings of about 156 families and

an amount exceeding Rs.5.50 crore. Rustam was only an employee and

his release, therefore, does not place the applicants on the same

footing. Having regard to their decision-making positions, the alleged

financial benefit and the gravity of the economic offence, the learned

APP prayed that bail be refused.


7.       At the stage of bail, the Court is required to consider the

nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the

accused, the material collected during investigation, the likelihood of

absconding or influencing witnesses, the need for further custody and

the probable duration of the trial. The Court is not expected to conduct



                                                                    4 of 9
                                                              BA-472-26

a meticulous evaluation of the evidence or return findings which may

prejudice the trial. Parity also depends upon similarity of role and

circumstances; it cannot be applied merely because another accused in

the same crime has been released.


8.       The applicants' plea that they were merely used as rubber

stamps cannot, at this stage, be accepted at its face value. Their

respective positions as President and Vice-President, their alleged

signatures upon the proceedings and financial documents, the credits

relied upon by the prosecution, the lending pattern alleged in the

charge-sheet and the loan entry standing in the name of applicant no.2

constitute prima facie material which will require explanation at the

trial. The material is sufficient to show that the prosecution case

against them is not founded merely upon their relationship with

accused no.1. This, however, is not the same as recording guilt. Even in

a serious economic offence, the Court must separately examine

whether further pre-trial custody is necessary after completion of

investigation.


9.       The statements of the depositors have been referred to by

both sides. Some statements generally refer to the President and Vice-

President as persons concerned with the affairs of the society. At the

same time, the specific operational acts of approaching villagers,

promising returns, receiving deposits and maintaining the branch

records are principally attributed to Rustam and accused no.1 Ganesh

More. Thus, the material against the applicants cannot be discarded,



                                                                   5 of 9
                                                             BA-472-26

but their alleged role must be assessed distinctly from the persons to

whom the actual mobilisation and handling of deposits is directly

attributed. The case against the applicants is now substantially

founded upon the documentary transactions, their signatures and the

alleged financial benefit.


10.      The applicants cannot claim exact parity with Rustam. His

bail order records certain circumstances peculiar to him, including

that amounts had been deposited in the names of his parents and that

he had addressed communications to the authorities apprehending

that the directors may abscond. Nevertheless, his release remains a

relevant circumstance when the operational acts of inducing

depositors and handling branch transactions are directly attributed to

him. The order passed in favour of Pooja Navale stands on an entirely

different footing. The official record did not disclose that she was a

director and, upon completion of investigation, she was not charge-

sheeted. Her case does not furnish a ground of parity to the present

applicants.


11.      The submission regarding delay also requires qualification.

The alleged activity is stated to have commenced in November 2022,

but the prosecution case is that deposits continued to be handled until

the branch closed in May 2025. The FIR followed on 25 th June, 2025. It

is, therefore, not a case where the complaint remained unexplained for

the entire period of three years and seven months after the alleged

transaction had concluded.



                                                                  6 of 9
                                                            BA-472-26

12.          The report now placed on record shows that properties

valued at Rs.1,12,36,225/- have been attached and secured under the

MPID Act. Such attachment neither amounts to repayment of the

depositors nor dilutes the criminal prosecution, and the effect and

sufficiency of the attachment will be considered by the competent

Court in accordance with law. It is nevertheless a relevant subsequent

circumstance while considering the need for continued custody,

because property of substantial value has already been brought within

the protective statutory mechanism. Criminal detention cannot be

employed as a substitute for attachment or as a means of compelling

recovery. The prosecution case must proceed to trial on the evidence

collected.


13.      The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been

filed. The minutes, registers, bank statements, loan documents and

signature material relied upon by the prosecution are already in the

custody of the investigating agency. No further recovery or discovery

requiring the applicants' physical custody is now demonstrated. The

applicants have remained in custody since 24 th November, 2025, have

no antecedents shown against them and are permanent residents. The

number of depositors, the volume of the financial record and the

number of witnesses indicate that the trial is unlikely to conclude in

the immediate future.


14.      The accusation concerns a substantial amount and the

savings of numerous depositors. Its gravity cannot be understated, and



                                                                 7 of 9
                                                                   BA-472-26

the applicants' alleged signatures and financial benefit will have to be

tested at the trial. At the same time, both applicants are women.

Applicant no.1 has two school-going children at home, while applicant

no.2 is a widow whose son is studying in the 12th standard. These

circumstances do not confer an automatic right to bail, but they are

legitimate considerations when taken together with the custody

undergone since 24th November, 2025, completion of investigation, the

predominantly documentary character of the case, the attachment and

securing of properties worth Rs.1,12,36,225/- and the possibility of

protecting the prosecution by stringent conditions. On a cumulative

consideration,     further   incarceration    of   the   applicants   is    not

warranted. Their presence at the trial and the interests of the

depositors and prosecution can be secured by appropriate conditions.


15.        The application, therefore, deserves to be allowed. It is

clarified that the observations in this order are confined to the

consideration of bail. The Special Court shall assess the evidence

independently and without being influenced by any prima facie

observation made herein.


                                   ORDER

(i)    The Bail Application is allowed.

(ii)   Applicant no.1 Usha Ganesh More and applicant no.2 Sushila
       Rajendra Mhaske shall be released on bail in Crime No.321 of
       2025 registered with Vaijapur Police Station, on each executing a
       personal recognizance bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two solvent
       sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Special Court.



                                                                           8 of 9
                                                                          BA-472-26

(iii)      The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, induce,
          threaten or influence any depositor or prosecution witness and
          shall not tamper with the evidence.

(iv)       Until conclusion of the trial, the applicants shall not participate
          in the management or financial affairs of Shri Saibaba Mahila
          Nagari Co-operative Patsanstha Limited and shall not enter any of
          its branches or offices, except with prior permission of the Special
          Court or the investigating officer.

(v)       The applicants shall not alienate, transfer, encumber, create
          third-party rights in, or otherwise deal with any property attached
          or secured under the MPID Act, except with prior permission of
          the competent Court. They shall furnish their current residential
          addresses and active mobile numbers to the investigating officer
          and to the Special Court and shall intimate any change forthwith.

(vi)       The applicants shall attend the Special Court on every date fixed,
          unless exempted for sufficient cause, and shall not seek
          unnecessary adjournments.

(vii)      The       applicants   shall   report    to   the   Economic   Offences
          Wing/Investigating Officer on the first Monday of every month
          between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon for six months after their
          release, or until the charge is framed, whichever is earlier.

(viii)      The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of
          the Special Court. If they possess passports, the same shall be
          deposited before the Special Court within one week of their
          release.

(ix)       Breach of any condition shall entitle the prosecution to apply for
          cancellation of bail.


                                                   (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)

Tandale




                                                                              9 of 9