BA-472-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO.472 OF 2026 1. Usha Ganesh More Age : 38 years, Occu. : Agri., R/o. Sundarnagar, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar 2. Sushila Rajendra Maske, Age : 40 years, Occu. : Agri., R/o. Sundarnagar, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar … Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Vaijapur Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar … Respondent ….. Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Hashmi Ubaid S. i/b. Mr. S. B. Bhosale, Advocate for Applicants Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for Respondent - State ….. CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2026 ORDER :- 1. The applicants, who are accused nos.2 and 3, seek regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.321 of 2025 registered with Vaijapur Police Station. The charge-sheet alleges offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 and Sections 21 and 22 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit 1 of 9 2026:BHC-AUG:38759 BA-472-26 Schemes Act, 2019. Their application below Exhibit 5 in Special Case No.1 of 2026 was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur on 12th February, 2026. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that Shri Saibaba Mahila Nagari Co-operative Patsanstha Limited opened its Vaijapur branch on 14th November, 2022. The informant Krushna Diliprao Dhule worked as a pigmy agent. On 14th May, 2025, he presented withdrawal requests aggregating to Rs.4.05 lakh on behalf of two customers to the Branch Manager, Rustam alias Jeetu Dadasaheb Matsagar. He was asked to return in the afternoon, but found the branch closed. On the following day, the branch remained closed and about 100 to 150 depositors had gathered outside. It was then alleged that the society had closed its branch without repaying the depositors. The FIR initially referred to deposits of about Rs.5.47 crore. The charge-sheet alleges that 156 depositors were defrauded of approximately Rs.5.50 crore. 3. The prosecution has charge-sheeted four persons. Accused no.1 Ganesh Ramhari More is stated to be the founder and Chief Executive Officer of the society. Applicant no.1 Usha Ganesh More is its President and the wife of accused no.1. Applicant no.2 Sushila Rajendra Mhaske is its Vice-President and the sister of applicant no.1. Accused no.4 Rustam was the Branch Manager. The prosecution alleges that deposits were mobilised by promising returns of 12% to 13% and that the money was thereafter diverted by granting 2 of 9 BA-472-26 unsecured personal and cash-credit loans in the names of members of the management and their relatives, without following the prescribed safeguards. The charge-sheet refers to records allegedly bearing the applicants' signatures and also reflects an outstanding loan of approximately Rs.14.36 lakh in the name of applicant no.2. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the FIR was registered on 25th June, 2025 though the commencement of the alleged occurrence is shown as 14th November, 2022. He submitted that the applicants are women holding honorary posts and that the affairs of the society were actually conducted by accused no.1 and the Branch Manager. The applicants were arrested on 21st November, 2025 and the charge-sheet was filed on 29th December, 2025. All financial records have been seized and nothing remains to be recovered from them. It was further submitted that the statements recorded before the Magistrate principally attribute the inducement and receipt of deposits to accused no.1 and Rustam and do not disclose any comparable operational act on the part of either applicant. 5. Reliance was also placed on the order dated 20th September, 2025 granting bail to Rustam in Bail Application No.1630 of 2025. It was submitted that Rustam was the Manager responsible for the day- to-day affairs, had approached villagers, promised higher returns, accepted deposits and maintained the branch records. Reference was also made to the interim protection earlier granted to Pooja Adinath Navale. It was pointed out that the investigating agency ultimately did 3 of 9 BA-472-26 not charge-sheet her. The applicants further rely upon absence of antecedents, their permanent residence and the circumstance that applicant no.1 has two school-going children while applicant no.2 is a widow having a son studying in the 12th standard. 6. Learned APP opposed the application. He submitted that the applicants were founder office-bearers and cannot avoid responsibility by describing themselves as mere rubber stamps. The prosecution relies upon minutes and proceedings allegedly bearing their signatures, bank statements and transaction records which, according to it, show credits exceeding Rs.50 lakh in the applicants' accounts, apart from the outstanding loan shown against applicant no.2. It was further submitted that several depositors have referred to the President and Vice-President as persons participating in the affairs of the society. The offence concerns the savings of about 156 families and an amount exceeding Rs.5.50 crore. Rustam was only an employee and his release, therefore, does not place the applicants on the same footing. Having regard to their decision-making positions, the alleged financial benefit and the gravity of the economic offence, the learned APP prayed that bail be refused. 7. At the stage of bail, the Court is required to consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the material collected during investigation, the likelihood of absconding or influencing witnesses, the need for further custody and the probable duration of the trial. The Court is not expected to conduct 4 of 9 BA-472-26 a meticulous evaluation of the evidence or return findings which may prejudice the trial. Parity also depends upon similarity of role and circumstances; it cannot be applied merely because another accused in the same crime has been released. 8. The applicants' plea that they were merely used as rubber stamps cannot, at this stage, be accepted at its face value. Their respective positions as President and Vice-President, their alleged signatures upon the proceedings and financial documents, the credits relied upon by the prosecution, the lending pattern alleged in the charge-sheet and the loan entry standing in the name of applicant no.2 constitute prima facie material which will require explanation at the trial. The material is sufficient to show that the prosecution case against them is not founded merely upon their relationship with accused no.1. This, however, is not the same as recording guilt. Even in a serious economic offence, the Court must separately examine whether further pre-trial custody is necessary after completion of investigation. 9. The statements of the depositors have been referred to by both sides. Some statements generally refer to the President and Vice- President as persons concerned with the affairs of the society. At the same time, the specific operational acts of approaching villagers, promising returns, receiving deposits and maintaining the branch records are principally attributed to Rustam and accused no.1 Ganesh More. Thus, the material against the applicants cannot be discarded, 5 of 9 BA-472-26 but their alleged role must be assessed distinctly from the persons to whom the actual mobilisation and handling of deposits is directly attributed. The case against the applicants is now substantially founded upon the documentary transactions, their signatures and the alleged financial benefit. 10. The applicants cannot claim exact parity with Rustam. His bail order records certain circumstances peculiar to him, including that amounts had been deposited in the names of his parents and that he had addressed communications to the authorities apprehending that the directors may abscond. Nevertheless, his release remains a relevant circumstance when the operational acts of inducing depositors and handling branch transactions are directly attributed to him. The order passed in favour of Pooja Navale stands on an entirely different footing. The official record did not disclose that she was a director and, upon completion of investigation, she was not charge- sheeted. Her case does not furnish a ground of parity to the present applicants. 11. The submission regarding delay also requires qualification. The alleged activity is stated to have commenced in November 2022, but the prosecution case is that deposits continued to be handled until the branch closed in May 2025. The FIR followed on 25th June, 2025. It is, therefore, not a case where the complaint remained unexplained for the entire period of three years and seven months after the alleged transaction had concluded. 6 of 9 BA-472-26 12. The report now placed on record shows that properties valued at Rs.1,12,36,225/- have been attached and secured under the MPID Act. Such attachment neither amounts to repayment of the depositors nor dilutes the criminal prosecution, and the effect and sufficiency of the attachment will be considered by the competent Court in accordance with law. It is nevertheless a relevant subsequent circumstance while considering the need for continued custody, because property of substantial value has already been brought within the protective statutory mechanism. Criminal detention cannot be employed as a substitute for attachment or as a means of compelling recovery. The prosecution case must proceed to trial on the evidence collected. 13. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. The minutes, registers, bank statements, loan documents and signature material relied upon by the prosecution are already in the custody of the investigating agency. No further recovery or discovery requiring the applicants' physical custody is now demonstrated. The applicants have remained in custody since 24th November, 2025, have no antecedents shown against them and are permanent residents. The number of depositors, the volume of the financial record and the number of witnesses indicate that the trial is unlikely to conclude in the immediate future. 14. The accusation concerns a substantial amount and the savings of numerous depositors. Its gravity cannot be understated, and 7 of 9 BA-472-26 the applicants' alleged signatures and financial benefit will have to be tested at the trial. At the same time, both applicants are women. Applicant no.1 has two school-going children at home, while applicant no.2 is a widow whose son is studying in the 12th standard. These circumstances do not confer an automatic right to bail, but they are legitimate considerations when taken together with the custody undergone since 24th November, 2025, completion of investigation, the predominantly documentary character of the case, the attachment and securing of properties worth Rs.1,12,36,225/- and the possibility of protecting the prosecution by stringent conditions. On a cumulative consideration, further incarceration of the applicants is not warranted. Their presence at the trial and the interests of the depositors and prosecution can be secured by appropriate conditions. 15. The application, therefore, deserves to be allowed. It is clarified that the observations in this order are confined to the consideration of bail. The Special Court shall assess the evidence independently and without being influenced by any prima facie observation made herein. ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) Applicant no.1 Usha Ganesh More and applicant no.2 Sushila Rajendra Mhaske shall be released on bail in Crime No.321 of 2025 registered with Vaijapur Police Station, on each executing a personal recognizance bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Special Court. 8 of 9 BA-472-26 (iii) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, induce, threaten or influence any depositor or prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the evidence. (iv) Until conclusion of the trial, the applicants shall not participate in the management or financial affairs of Shri Saibaba Mahila Nagari Co-operative Patsanstha Limited and shall not enter any of its branches or offices, except with prior permission of the Special Court or the investigating officer. (v) The applicants shall not alienate, transfer, encumber, create third-party rights in, or otherwise deal with any property attached or secured under the MPID Act, except with prior permission of the competent Court. They shall furnish their current residential addresses and active mobile numbers to the investigating officer and to the Special Court and shall intimate any change forthwith. (vi) The applicants shall attend the Special Court on every date fixed, unless exempted for sufficient cause, and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. (vii) The applicants shall report to the Economic Offences Wing/Investigating Officer on the first Monday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon for six months after their release, or until the charge is framed, whichever is earlier. (viii) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Special Court. If they possess passports, the same shall be deposited before the Special Court within one week of their release. (ix) Breach of any condition shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) Tandale 9 of 9