1 9.aba.795.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.795 OF 2026 Priyanka w/o Sharad Kamble ..vs.. State of Maharashtra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri K.D. Bhende, Advocate for the applicant. Shri N.B. Jawade, APP for the non-applicant/State. CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 09.09.2026 Heard. 2. Apprehending arrest, the applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.545/2024 registered with the Seloo Police Station, District Wardha for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B, 413, 474 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments), Act, 1999 and 21, 22, 23, 25, 26 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act). 3. The FIR came to be lodged alleging that the accused persons including the applicant, who is the wife of main accused, cheated public at large by taking deposits from them under the pretext of attractive returns on deposits and investment. As the informant was duped by an amount of Rs.24,97,420/- and has further stated that even other persons have also been duped and hence the report. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits 2026:BHC-NAG:12122 2 9.aba.795.2026 that the applicant is the Manager of the Shetkari Mahila Nidhi Bank (‘the Bank’) and she is the wife of the President of the Bank, who is the main accused. He submits that the misappropriation was done by the husband of the applicant. The applicant is nominal, who was shown to be working as a Manager, and there is no role of the applicant in the present crime. Considering the fact that the applicant is a woman, entire property has been seized by the police officials and no custody would be required, therefore, the applicant deserves to be granted bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application by submitting that there is no license to receive deposits from the public and in spite of that the applicant and other accused person have accepted the deposits in the bank. And when the customers claimed their amount, they were denied. He further submits that the applicant is absconding since the registration of FIR. He submitted that earlier application was withdrawn by the applicant when this court showed disinclination to grant bail. Under such circumstances, he submits that the second application may not be entertained merely because the charge sheet is filed, as more than sufficient evidence has been collected by the investigating officer against the applicant. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides, it appears that earlier bail application of the applicant, was withdrawn by the applicant, as this Court has shown its disinclination to grant bail. Upon perusal of FIR and charge sheet it appears that there are serious 3 9.aba.795.2026 allegations levelled against the applicant and therefore, there is sufficient material against applicant. It is noted that, admittedly the applicant was a Director of the Bank and during that time, she and the accused persons have accepted huge deposits from the public at large. They were not authorized to accept the deposit or so also there is no license from the Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFC) and the Reserve Bank of India. It appears that several schemes are run by the Bank and allured the public at large to deposit money by giving them false assurance of multiple times return and duped the public at large. 7. Under such circumstances, considering the prime role of the applicant, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is rejected. (M.M. NERLIKAR , J. ) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 11/09/2026 18:57:48