Order 150926aba687.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [ABA] NO. 687 OF 2026. Rupali Suresh Vaidya -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and another. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri V.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri H.R. Dhumale, A.P.P. for Non-applicants. Shri A. Chaware, Advocate Assisting Prosecution. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2026. Heard. 2. The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.375/2024 registered with Malkapur Police Station, District Buldhana for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B), 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 146 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors. (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:12439 Order 150926aba687.26 2 3. The first information report came to be lodged by Sou.Aruna Vywahare, Special Accounts Officer Class-2, Cooperative Societies, Buldhana who conducted the audit of Unnati Mahila Nagri Patsanstha, Malkapur (Society) for the period 2022-23, during which it is alleged that misappropriation of an amount of Rs.10,13,47,850/- was done by the office bearers and staff of the said Society, hence, the report. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that initially there was an audit report of the year 2021-22 wherein misappropriation was noticed, and accordingly the first information report came to be registered on 13.07.2023 bearing Crime No.368/2023. Later on again the audit was conducted in the year 2022-23 and misappropriation of more than Rs.10 Crores was noticed in the said report and accordingly another first information report was lodged on 04.08.2024, i.e. the present crime, wherein the applicant is arraigned as an accused. The learned Counsel further submits that, the applicant is merely working as a Cashier in the Patsanstha, and it is the management who is responsible for the said misappropriation. It is submitted that Rgd. Order 150926aba687.26 3 though the first information report was lodged on 04.08.2024, however, till date the investigating officer has not arrested the applicant, as no major role has been attributed to her. He submits that a notice under Section 35[3] of the BNSS was issued to her, however, it was served upon her mother. 5. The learned Counsel further submits that though in the audit report the loan was shown to be availed of by the applicant, however, the same was repaid, infact more amount than the loan availed of was paid by the applicant to the Patsanstha, and therefore, no offence has been committed by the applicant. Learned Counsel submits that the allegations in the audit report of 2022-23 against the applicant appears to be that of negligence in performing her duty as an employee. It is further submitted that the applicant has cooperated while preparing the audit report, by producing the documentary evidence to the auditor, in such circumstances, according to the learned Counsel, the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. for the Non- applicants and learned Counsel assisting prosecution vehemently opposed the application by submitting that the Rgd. Order 150926aba687.26 4 applicant is involved in a serious crime. They submit that the applicant had maintained two accounts in the Patsanstha, one in her maternal name and another in paternal name, and the same accounts were used for misappropriating the amounts of the Patsanstha. They further submit that huge loan amount was availed of by the applicant without proper application for the same. Further it is submitted that the audit report is a self speaking document which shows the involvement of the applicant in the present crime, as the liability of more than Rs.16 lakhs has been fastened on the applicant, and she also had duped poor depositors along with other accused persons. In such circumstances, considering the seriousness of the crime and the fact that the applicant is absconding from the date of registration of the first information report, she does not deserve any protection, and the application is liable to be rejected. 7. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. At the outset it is necessary to mention that earlier the applicant has moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Application (ABA) No.46/2025, however, when this Court has shown its disinclination to grant the relief prayed for, the said application Rgd. Order 150926aba687.26 5 was withdrawn on 02.05.2025. Now this is the second bail application filed after filing of the charge sheet. So far as the charge sheet against the applicant is concerned, it is filed under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further to be noted that after going through the first information report and charge sheet, and more specifically the audit report, it appears that the misappropriation is to the tune of Rs.10,13,47,850/- by the Management and Employees of the Patsanstha. It further appears that the applicant was working as a cashier in the said Patsanstha. So far as allegations against the applicant are concerned, it is alleged that she had taken loan of Rs.10 lakhs without there being any application, however, the amount was directly credited in her account. It further appears that the applicant had maintained two accounts with the Patsanstha i.e. one in her paternal name and another in her maternal name. Perusal of the accounts of the applicant reveals that there are transactions of lakhs of rupees, however, specific amount due from the applicant is approximately Rs.16 lakhs. Further since the applicant was a cashier at the Patsanstha, she seems to be instrumental in the misappropriation of the amount. She and other co-accused namely Rajesh Chauhan, Rgd. Order 150926aba687.26 6 Ramesh Tandale are shown to be jointly and severally liable for the misappropriation of Rs.50,02,306/-. 8. Therefore, considering the serious nature of allegations leveled against the applicant, coupled with the fact that earlier bail application was withdrawn, and also that the applicant has managed to abscond for a considerable period, in view of this, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has not made out a case for grant of protection, and hence the application filed by the applicant is rejected. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 21/09/2026 10:49:47