CrAppln-3932-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3932 OF 2026 IN APPEAL/793/2026 Minakshi Ramesh Vedpathak Age: 67 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o.: Vidyanagar East, Beed, District Beed. ….Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through Investigating Officer, Georai Police Station, District Beed). …..Respondent ….. Mr. Nilesh S Ghanekar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for Respondent. ..... CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026 Pronounced on : 29 SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER : 1. Instant application is for suspension of sentence awarded in Special Case ACB No.15 of 2015 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed dated 23.09.2026 for offences under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act [for short “P.C. Act”] and equally, prayer is raised for grant of bail also. 2026:BHC-AUG:44131 CrAppln-3932-2026 -2- 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that applicant has been held guilty for above charges and she is sentenced for five years imprisonment. That, as on today, she is 70 years of age. That, there are allegations of demand and acceptance of Rs.1,000/-. However, according to learned Counsel for the applicant, there is no convincing evidence on the point of initial demand. The demand verification panchanama is also silent on the point of demand. Therefore, the demand itself is doubtful. He pointed out that it is doubtful whether any work was pending with the accused, as the said Bill i.e. Form No.52 bears the signatures of both complainant and the accused. He further pointed out that the said amount was not a bribe but was towards the expenses incurred for preparing the bill at a private computer centre. That, apart from that there are vital admissions and material omissions in the testimony of complainant. Therefore, there are good grounds, but to be dealt in appeal, however, as much more time would require to hear the appeal, relief of suspension of sentence and grant of bail is urged for. 3. Learned APP opposed the application by pointing out that here case of prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That, there is consistent evidence of complainant and shadow panch on the point of demand. Shadow panch supports complainant's testimony CrAppln-3932-2026 -3- and as recovery is proved, learned trial Court committed no error in accepting the case of prosecution. 4. Heard perused the papers. It appears that applicant, who was working as Head Mistress in Zilla Parishad School, faced trial for charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P. C. Act. Apparently, the trial commenced in the year 2015 and concluded in the year 2026 i.e. almost after a lapse of more than a decade. The applicant is currently said to be 70 years of age. Learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that apart from material omissions and contradictions, initial demand itself is not proved, as demand verification panchanama is silent on this point. If this is so, the applicant has a good case on merits. However, the appeal, being of the year 2026, may not be heard in the near future. Therefore, the relief as prayed deserves to be granted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER I. The Criminal Application is allowed. II. The substantive sentence imposed on the applicant - Minakshi Ramesh Vedpathak by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Special Case ACB No.15 of 2015 on 23.09.2026, stands suspended till the final hearing and disposal of Criminal Appeal CrAppln-3932-2026 -4- No.793 of 2026. III. The applicant be released on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount. IV. The applicant shall not commit any criminal activity. V. The applicant shall remain present before the learned trial Judge once in six months, till final hearing and disposal of the appeal, commencing from the date he tenders bail papers and thereafter, the trial Judge to fix dates for his subsequent appearances. VI. In case of two consecutive defaults on the part of the applicant to remain present before the trial court, the trial court to inform this court about the same and in that eventuality, the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant. VII. Bail before the trial court. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] scm