1. Application for anticipatory bail in offences including criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and MPID Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3297
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Arun R. Pedneker, J
LALITA RAMESH MUN ALIAS LALITA RAJU KHADE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER – Respondent
ABA 560 / 2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saurabh R. Nikal, R.R. Karpe
For the Respondents: Komal Kandharkar, Amol Andhale, Visal Andhale
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saurabh R. Nikal, R.R. Karpe
For the Respondents: Komal Kandharkar, Amol Andhale, Visal Andhale
The court granted interim protection in an anticipatory bail application, considering the applicant's gender and limited educational background as factors that hindered her understanding of the implications of the official resolutions she signed in her capacity as a nominal director.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 217 read with 34 - Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act - Sections 3 and 4 - Anticipatory bail - Application for interim protection against arrest in connection with financial irregularities and fraud in a credit society - Applicant claims to be a dummy director with limited educational qualifications and no understanding of daily affairs or personal benefit from loan transactions - State contends joint responsibility of directors and necessity of interrogation to determine individual role - Court considers the profile of the applicant, specifically her gender and limited education, as factors affecting her understanding of the implications of resolutions signed. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a woman with educational qualifications below the 10th standard, was appointed as a nominal Director of a credit society. She is accused of offenses involving breach of trust, cheating, and forgery in two separate criminal cases. The applicant contends she was a dummy Director with no authority over loan disbursements and derived no personal benefit, despite her signatures appearing on resolutions.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the applicant is a lady and lacked sufficient qualification to understand the implications of the resolutions she signed. While the state argued that her joint responsibility as a Director necessitated interrogation to determine personal benefit, the Court found the applicant's background a significant factor in granting relief.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to interim protection from arrest given her alleged role as a nominal director and her limited educational background.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that considering the applicant's gender and lack of qualification to understand the implications of official resolutions, the provision of interim protection is appropriate, contingent upon her cooperation with the investigating agency.
Result: Interim protection granted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Applicant claims no understanding of affairs, no personal benefit, and dummy director. State argues joint responsibility and need for interrogation. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Applicant is a lady with low education, no specific evidence of personal benefit yet; allegations are general. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Interim protection granted due to gender, lack of qualification, and no evidence of personal benefit pending further investigation. (Para 5 )
5. Interim bail granted with conditions: bond, cooperation with investigation, no tampering, appearance on specified dates. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
6. What is the test for granting anticipatory bail to a nominal director?
Lack of personal benefit, limited education, and no direct involvement in day-to-day affairs may justify interim protection. (Para 3 , 5 )
7. Is the absence of specific evidence against an accused sufficient for anticipatory bail?
Yes, when allegations are general and no personal benefit is established, interim relief may be granted pending investigation. (Para 4 , 5 )
P.C. :
1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Special P.P. for the respondent-State.
2] The applicant has approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.0455/2023, registered with CIDCO Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Section 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 217 r/w. 34 of the IPC as well as Section 3 and 4 of MPID Act and also in connection with Crime No.0454/2023, registered with CIDCO Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Section 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 217 r/w. 34 of the IPC as well as Section 3 of MPID Act .
3] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a lady below 10th standard qualification and appointed as the nominal Director of the Patsansha and have no understanding on day to day affairs of the society. The applicant was not authorized to be a signatory for sanctioning of disbursement of loans of the patsansha. The applicant although appointed as a Director is a dummy Director. The applicant has not taken any personal benefit from the loan transactions. He further submits that the applicant has no role as far as grant of loan although her signature is appearing on resolutions.
4] The learned Special P.P. submits that as of today there is no specific evidence to establish as regards personal benefit in the alleged crime. The allegations are general in nature against the applicant as other Directors and the applicant is jointly responsible with the other Directors. The applicant has signed loan transactions and she has attended the loan meetings. Further interrogation of the applicant would be necessary so as to ascertain individual role i.e. whether she has received personal benefit.
5] Considering the rival submissions and considering that the applicant is a lady and not qualified enough to understand implication of resolutions, the applicant is granted interim protection in the following terms :-
A] Till the next date, in the event the applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No.0455/2023, registered with CIDCO Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Section 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 217 r/w. 34 of the IPC as well as Section 3 and 4 of MPID Act and also in connection with Crime No.0454/2023, registered with CIDCO Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Section 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 217 r/w. 34 of the IPC as well as Section 3 of MPID Act , she shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/-, with one or two sureties in the like amount.
B] The applicant shall remain present before the investigating officer on 02.05.2025 and 03.05.2025 between 10.30 a.m. and 1.30 noon p.m. thereafter as and when required by the investigating officer.
C] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation, including producing all documents in her possession, as may be demanded by the investigating officer.
D] The applicant shall not influence the informant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case and she shall not tamper with the evidence.
6] Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid conditions may result in this order being cancelled.
7] List on 08.05.2025. Interim protection till the next date.
