Lalita W/O Sudhir Chakre v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Frezarpura Ps , Amravati
2026:BHC-NAG:3050
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 114 OF 2026.
Lalita Sudhir Chakre -VERSUSState of Maharashtra.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri R.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri A.A. Madiwale, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2026.
Heard.
2.
The applicant came to be arrested in connection with Crime No.780/2024 registered with Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati City for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
The first information report is lodged by one Pramod Mahajan alleging that Sudhir Chakre was known to him. He was dealing in property business. On 14.08.2022
Sudhir had been to his house and informed the informant that he intends to invest money in property for which he requires huge funds, and if he succeeds in the same, he would be giving return to the investors at 3% per month. On this, the informant invested an amount of Rs.7 lakhs, and in return Sudhir returned him Rs.72,000/- on Rs.6 lakhs for four months and Rs.3000/- on Rs. 1 lakh for one month. Thereafter Sudhir stopped paying interest as he suffered huge loss in the business, and he also refused to return the invested amount. Similarly others have also invested the amounts with him totaling to Rs.2,38,50,000/-. Therefore, the report. 4.
The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that so far as the role of present applicant is concerned, she is the wife of Sudhir Chakre. Her husband has opened a firm in the name of "Profitwala", wherein the main accused Sudhir has allured several persons to invest amount in share market. The applicant is 9th pass, and not aware of the acts of her husband, however, she has given signatures on the documents, as Sudhir has asked her to sign the same. The learned Counsel further submits that even the shop was established and license was in
the name of the applicant, however, she has no connection with the alleged crime, and therefore, request is made to release her on bail.
5.
On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits that as many as 44 victims are involved in the present case and near about amount of Rs.2.5 Crores is involved. He further submits that it cannot be believed that without consent of the applicant, the firm was established, since documents shows her signature. Not only this, the license of the shop was also in the name of the present applicant and unless and until there is consent from the applicant, it cannot be said that the license was obtained against her will. According to the learned A.P.P. there is more than sufficient evidence against the applicant, and therefore, the application be rejected.
6.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have also considered the fact whether the applicant has asked any of the victim to invest the amount in the firm. None of the victim have named the present applicant. Though it appears that the firm was in the name of the applicant, the fact remains that all the transactions, including
bank transactions were operated and done by her husband i.e. Sudhir. Further though name of present applicant appears in the statements, however, it does not show that the applicant has instigated or allured any one to invest in the share market or in the firm. Considering the role of the present applicant, and as the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, I am inclined to grant her bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The applicant /accused Lalita Sudhir Chakre be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.780/2024 registered with Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati City for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of of the Indian Penal Code on her furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount.
(iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The accused shall provide her residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change her place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency.
(v) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If she fails to attend the trial for one date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, her default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail.
(vi) The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of deciding this application. The Trial Court shall not get itself influenced by said observations, during the course of trial.
(vii) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of. JUDGE Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/02/2026 10:21:10