P.C.:

1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with C. R. No. 49/2025 for the offence punishable under 316(2), 316(5), 318(2) and 318(4) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at Saswad Police Station Pune (R).

2. This matter was argued yesterday and was kept to day in order to permit the applicant to make a statement before the Court as regards to in whose account the entire money of Rs.46,58,800/- was transferred as mentioned in the FIR and how did the applicant return the said money along with interest. A copy of the sale deed, which has been executed by the applicant was sought, even a soft copy if tendered, the Court would consider the same. However, the same has not been done.

3. In the complaint lodged by the Manager of Sadhana Sahakari Bank, Saswad Branch, it has been alleged that the present applicant being a staff member who on the pretext of collecting money from the customers, issued bogus receipts and even manage to close the FD’s of customers siphon of the entire money which after audit conducted by the bank has been realized that a sum of Rs.46,58,800/-. The applicant after being known about the said fraud been caught by the bank officials has returned the said money of Rs.46,58,800/- along with interest. The FIR to that effect was lodged. The anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant before the Sessions Court was rejected on 25 February, 2025.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a lady. She has shown her bonafides by returning the entire money claimed by the bank along with interest. There is no recovery to be made from the applicant. The applicant is ready to co-operate with the police. Therefore, her custody is not at all necessary. To buttress his submission, he relies upon the following judgments.

(i) Pradip N. Sharma vs. State of Gujrat, ([2025 SCC OnLINE SC 457])

(ii) Smt. Bhavani Revanna vs. State of Karnataka, ([pass by the Single Judge of High Court of Karnataka At Bengaluru in Cri Petition No.5125 of 2024])

5. The learned APP has opposed the present application and submitted that there are statements recorded of account holders and those statements are dated 22 February 2025 and 12 March 2025, wherein, they have stated that how fraud was committed by the present applicant on them. If not for the audit conducted by the bank, the applicant/accused would have committed a fraud of a higher magnitude. In fact by letter dated 17 September, 2024 which was in hand writing of the present applicant addressed to the Chairman of the Bank, she has admitted her guilt. She has also admitted that she used to give forged receipts to the customers. Therefore, he submits that the custody of the present applicant would be necessary in order to do proper investigation as to how many more peoples are involved with the present applicant in committing the fraud. So also, whether the fraud is only of the amount of Rs.46,58,800/- or it is much more. The method applied by the present applicant to defraud the bank, its customers and public at large, is to be found out. The whole trail of money has to be found out because, after the applicant committing the fraud, she has deposited the embezzled amount in different accounts. How the applicant has managed to bring back the money is also to be seen. The only way the whole crime can be investigated is by the custody of the present applicant. The applicant herself has submitted that her husband is unemployed. Therefore, if the applicant submitting that she has a son whose care has to be taken, the husband of the applicant is quite capable for doing it. To support his submissions, he relied upon the following judgments.

(i) State Of Gujarat vs Mohanlal Jitamaljiporwal & Anr., ([1987 (2) SCC 364])

(ii) Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation., ([(2013) 7 SCC 466])

6. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and have considered