The legality of an arrest under Section 46(4) of CrPC is crucial, particularly regarding the communication of grounds of arrest, impacting fundamental rights under Article 22(1).

JUDGMENT :

Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.

1. By this application under Section 483 of the BNSS , the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.922/2024 registered with the non-applicant/police station for offences punishable under Sections 109 , 120-B, 406, 409, 417, 420, 421, 424, 467, 468, 471, and 477-A of the IPC and under Section 3 the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (the MPID Act).

2. The applicant came to be arrested on 30.9.2024 and since then she is in jail.

3. The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by the Special Auditor on an allegation that the applicant was working as Chief Executive Officer of “Babaji Date Mahila Sahakari Bank Limited, Yavatmal”. Initially, she worked as Clerk and Branch Manager of the said bank. During Audit, the Auditor noted some irregularities and illegalities and it revealed to the Auditor that various loans were obtained by applicant’s husband and also in names of her relatives. Her husband stood as Guarantor to the loans of the relatives. The said loans are sanctioned without following due process and sanction of the Board of Directors. Thus, the applicant was instrumental to loss of Rs.1.88 Crores. During her tenure, total fraud committed was Rs.2,42,31,21,019/-. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the crime against the applicant along with other co-accused.

4. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Manohar for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor Shri D.V.Chauhan for the State.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that perusal of chargesheet, except allegation that the applicant’s husband has obtained the loans which were due and the loans are obtained in the names of her relatives, no other allegation is levelled to show her direct involvement. The investigation papers show that loans outstanding against the husband of the applicant are already repaid. As far as responsibility of her husband as Guarantor is concerned, the house in the name of mother of her husband is mortgaged. He also invited my attention to the Auditor’s Report which shows that there were no illegalities and irregularities while disbursing the loan amounts. Thus, as far as involvement of the applicant as to misappropriation is concerned, the same does not reveal.

The another ground raised by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant is that grounds of arrest are not communicated to the applicant.

At the same time, he submitted that as issue regarding grounds of arrest whether to be communicated in each case either before the arrest or forthwith after the arrest is pending before the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court and, therefore, he is not pressing for the same.

He submitted that the arrest of the applicant is after sunset which, in view of Section 46 of the CrPC, is illegal. The grounds of arrest are not communicated to nearest relatives who can arrange for her defence. He submitted that even report of the Special Auditor nowhere discloses the role of the applicant in the above said misappropriation.

In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on following decisions:

1. Aleksander Kurganov vs. State of Maharashtra , (2021) SCC OnLine Bom 150; and

2. Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and anr , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the entire material collected by the investigating agency during investigation revealed that the applicant was mainly associated with supervising and disbursement of loan and verification of loan proposals. The loans granted in the name of the applicant though closed, other loan accounts in the names o