Sunita Chandramauli Singh v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3265 OF 2025 Sunita Chandramauli Singh ...Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

...Respondents

Mr. Dhanraj Lodha, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. V. N. Sagare, APP for the Respondent/State. Adv. Rani Yadav, a/w Adv. Jyoti Kataria, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM

:

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

04.02.2026.

P.C. :

1.

This is an application for Anticipatory Bail. 2.

The applicant is apprehending her arrest in Crime No. 735 of 2025 registered at Central Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(1), 336(2), 336(3), 336(4), 337, 338, 340(2) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3.

The present applicant, at the relevant time, was working as a incharge Head-Mistress of Govind Singh Hindi School. 1/4

It is alleged that co-accused in the present crime namely Rajeshkumar Tiwari, who was working in the said school as a teacher, was never promoted as a supervisor by the management of the said school and inspite of it the applicant and other coaccused got prepared forged approval letter of the Education Officer to that effect. It is alleged that based on said forged letter, the present applicant submitted salary bills to the education department.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the first informant.

5.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was a dispute in the management. It is submitted that the applicant received the alleged forged letter from the president of the trust and it was brought to the notice of secretary of the trust. It is submitted that the applicant was not aware that the approval letter was forged. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicant is ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation. 2/4

6.

On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondentState and the learned counsel for the first informant submit that considering the nature of crime the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

7.

I have perused the papers of investigation. Prima-facie, there appears to be no material to infer that the alleged forged letter was prepared by the present applicant or that she was involved in preparing the alleged forged letter. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. In the result, the following order is passed :

O R D E R

a) The Application is allowed.

b) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 735 of 2025 registered at Central Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(1), 336(2), 336(3), 336(4), 337, 338, 340(2) & 61(2) of the 3/4

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

c) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the investigating officer and shall co-operate in the investigation.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.] 4/4