LAWS(BOM)-2024-6-12

ASHWINI NILESH JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On June 12, 2024
Ashwini Nilesh Joshi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by the accused no. 2 for grant of regular bail in connection with CR No. 168 of 2023 registered with Warje-Malwadi Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 406 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 ('MPID Act').

(2.) The applicant had applied for regular bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. However, her application is rejected on 18/10/2023. Hence, the present application seeking regular bail.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant was working as a teacher and was not involved in the business of her husband. The allegation with regard to the fraud is against the applicant's husband who was running company by the name Real Value Enterprises. The allegation is that the applicant's husband has accepted the deposits and failed to return the amounts as promised. The learned senior counsel further submitted that a perusal of the chargesheet indicates that statements of all the 32 investors have been recorded. He pointed out the statements of the witnesses and submitted that the allegations of most of the witnesses are against the applicant's husband. He submits that though some of the witnesses have made allegation against the applicant, the nature of allegation is that the couple was involved in influencing the investors to part with a huge amount. He submits that none of the investors were returned with their amount, hence, their allegations against the applicant. He further submitted that as per the investigation a total amount of Rs.86,75,000.00 is shown to have been defrauded amount found in the joint account out of which an amount of Rs.13,03,500.00 is shown to have been transferred from the joint account of the applicant and her husband to her personal account. He submits that even the case of the prosecution is that the alleged defrauded amount was found in the joint account.