Bombay High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by the accused, a bank employee who allegedly siphoned money of customers, for an FIR registered under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(2) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a Single Judge Bench of Rajesh S. Patil, J., rejected the application, holding that the physical presence of the accused for interrogation was necessary for completion of the investigation. Moreover, there was a possibility that she would pressure and threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence.
Background
A complaint was lodged by the Sadhana Sahakari Bank, Saswad Branch (‘the Bank’), alleging that the accused, a staff member, siphoned off Rs. 46.58 Lakhs on the pretext of collecting money from customers by issuing bogus receipts and closing fixed deposits. When the accused discovered that her fraud was caught, she returned the money along with interest. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged.
The accused filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, but it was rejected. Aggrieved, she filed the present application.
Analysis
The Court noted that the accused admitted her guilt, stating that she issued bogus receipts to the customers by accepting monies from them and siphoning them. The Court further noted that the bank was a co-operative bank located at a remote Taluka in Maharashtra. The customers were small shopkeepers and local villagers who had very meagre incomes.
Noting this, the Court remarked that the accused took advantage of such a situation and siphoned off their money. Perhaps the fraud amount was much more than the amount mentioned by the investigating officer. Apart from the present accused, there appeared to be many more people involved in the said crime whose names the accused had not disclosed.
The Court stated that the money lying in the bank was public money. Thus, the accused committed the crime not only against the customers and the bank but also against the Government. Regarding the return of money, the Court stated that returning did not mean an end to the crime. The crime had admittedly been committed by the accused.
The Court noted that the account holders have themselves filed a complaint against the accused, narrating how they were cheated by her.
Regarding the accused’s contention that she was a lady and had a son to look after, the Court noted that her husband was unemployed and capable of looking after their son.
Thus, the Court held that the physical presence of the accused for interrogation was necessary for completion of the investigation. Moreover, there was a possibility that she would pressure and threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. The Court stated that if the accused was enlarged on pre-arrest bail, the forensic audit would be hampered, and it would be difficult to identify how much money was actually embezzled and who else was involved in the crime.
Accordingly, the application was rejected.
[Sheetal Swapnil Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, Citation No. of 2024, decided on 13-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: Siddharth Ajay Mehta, Harshada Shrikhande, Vaibhav, and Bhargavi Mundhe
For the respondent: APP Ajay S. Patil
