Mayuri Arun Chaurasiya v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 725 OF 2026 Mayuri Arun Chaurasiya ... Applicant

VERSUS

by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date:

2026.06.12 16:49:13 +0700 SONALI SATISH KILAJE The State Of Maharashtra ... Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Dilip B. Shinde a/w. Mr. Jitendra Kesarkar, Mr. Mohan C. Kumbhar i/b. Mr. Mukund S. Mane, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.R.Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State. _________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 11th JUNE, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

The applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R.No. 106 of 2025 registered with Cyber Police Station, Nashik for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS Act") and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

2.

It is prosecution's case that applicant and co-accused called the victims stating that they will provide loan to them and under the guise of providing loan, they have accepted amount from them. It is alleged that applicant has received more than Rs. 9 lakhs in her bank account from the victims.

3.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She was working in the company of accused No.1. She is a lady. Chargesheet has been filed. Investigation is completed. The police has recovered all the documents. Hence, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and requested to allow the application.

4.

It is contention of learned APP that the applicant is the main culprit. The amount of Rs.6,65,000/- is deposited in the bank account of the applicant by victims. It shows her active involvement in the crime. The applicant has duped poor people under the guise of providing loan. Considering the allegations, her custodial interrogation is required and requested to reject the application.

5.

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused chargesheet and documents produced on record. From the documents produced on record, it shows that various amounts have been deposited in the bank account of the applicant. The statements of witnesses show that applicant had called them and asked them to deposit amount to provide loan. The poor people are duped by the applicant and co-accused. Though chargesheet is filed but in the said chargesheet, the applicant has shown as absconding. Considering these facts, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and I pass following order :-

ORDER

(i) The Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)