Sau. Sunita W/O Anantrao Chavhan v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Malkapur City, Malkapur, Dist. Buldhana
2025:BHC-NAG:1707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.63 OF 2025 (Sau. Sunita w/o Anantrao Chavhan Vs. State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P.S. Lingayat, Advocate h/f Mr. V.S. Giramkar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.A. Thakare, APP for the State.
CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED :- FEBRUARY 18, 2025.
Heard.
2.
By this application, the applicant who is the Director of the Unnati Mahila Urban Co-operative Credit Society, Malkapur seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.375/2024 registered with police station Malkapur City, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 201 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 146 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest Of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. 3.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the Director of the said Unnati Mahila Urban Co-operative Credit Society, Malkapur and only allegation against her that there was a negligence by all the Directors as far as the audit report is concerned. He submitted that the material allegations are levelled against
the President, Cashier and the Manager of the said Society. The other co-accused are already protected by this Court. The similar role is of the present applicant. In view of that, ad-interim protection granted to the applicant deserves to be confirmed.
4.
Learned APP strongly opposed the application and submitted that considering the huge stake of misappropriation, the present applicant who is the Director have signed the resolutions, and therefore, the role of the applicant is revealed. In view of that, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected.
5.
I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides. Perused the audit report from which it reveals that the entire allegations as far as the misappropriation is concerned is against the Manager of the Society. The present applicant is the Director. The other Directors are already protected by this Court by granting anticipatory bail. In view of that, the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
6.
Hence, the application is allowed.
7.
The interim protection granted to the applicant vide order dated 31/01/2025 is hereby confirmed on the similar terms and conditions. 8.
The applicant shall attend the concerned
police station once in a week i.e. on every Monday between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM, till filing of the charge-sheet and shall cooperate with the investigating agency.
9.
The application is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) *Divya