Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Bank Employee Who Was Booked For Fraud Of ₹46.58 Lakhs Even After She Returned Amount

The Bombay High Court last week denied anticipatory bail application of a woman employee of cooperative bank, who was booked for siphoning off Rs 46.58 lakhs money off the bank's customers, even after she returned the defrauded amount to the bank.

Single-judge Justice Rajesh Patil refused to consider the fact that the applicant before him was a. woman and had already returned the Rs 46.58 lakhs to the bank. 

"The monies lying in the bank is public money. The applicant by committing the present crime, has committed the crime not only against the customers and bank but also against the Government by siphoning off the monies. As regards the submission of the counsel for the applicant, that the applicant has returned back the money, according to me, returning back the money does not mean that there is an end of crime. The crime has already been committed by the present applicant and she is aware about her guilt and she has admitted her guilt," Justice Patil said in the order passed on March 13. 

The judge further noted that the applicant Sheetal Deshmukh worked in the Sadhana Sahakari Bank's branch at Saswad. a remote village near Pune district. 

"The bank in question is a co-operative bank having its branch at a remote Taluka in Maharashtra. The customers of the such bank are the small shop keepers and local villagers having very meager income. The applicant has taken advantage of this and has siphoned off their monies not depositing those monies in the bank. The applicant by using the said money for her own purpose and probably the fraud which has admitted by her of Rs.46,58,800/- is much more than the amount which has been mentioned by the investigating officer," the judge observed. 

Further, the judge opined that more persons would be involved in the present crime but the applicant Deshmukh has not disclosed the names of those persons. The judge also noted the fact that the applicant utilised the siphoned off money from July 4, 2023. 

The judge noted the prosecution case that the applicant issued bogus receipts to customers, who deposited their money in the accounts. She also managed to close the Fixed Deposits (FDs) of various customers and even siphoned off those monies. It was only after the bank authorities conducted an audit, that the crime was unearthed. Soon after this, the applicant returned the money that she siphoned off, to the bank. 

However, despite this the court was unimpressed. The judge refused to accept the contention that the applicant being a woman cannot be arrested. The judge noted that the applicant's husband was 'unemployed' so he can very well look after their son.

"The physical presence of the applicant for interrogation is necessary for completion of investigation. Moreover, there is a possibility of the applicant pressurizing and threatening the witnesses and likely to tamper with evidence. If the applicant is enlarged on pre-arrest bail the forensic audit would be hampered and it will be difficult to identify how much actual amount has been embezzled and who all are involved in the crime," the judge emphasised while rejecting Deshmukh's anticipator bail plea. 

Appearance:

Advocates Siddharth Mehta, Harshada Shrikhande, Vaibhav and Bhargavi Mundhe appeared for the Applicant.

Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Patil represented the State.

Case Title: Sheetal Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra (Anticipator Bail Application 7020 of 2025)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 103

Click Here To Read/Download Order