Deepshri W/O Vinay Badhe vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage. While acknowledging the principles laid down in Satender Kumar Antil and Sanjay Chandra regarding undertrial prisoners and economic offences, the Court found that these observations did not entitle the applicant to bail. The Court specifically considered the applicant's past conduct, noting that she had obtained anticipatory bail from a subordinate court by suppressing the pendency of her application before the High Court, which led to the cancellation of her bail. The Court also took into account the learned Magistrate's estimate that the trial would require at least nine months for disposal, given the bulky records and the number of witnesses, including bank records from 2009 to 2019. The Court rejected the bail application but directed the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to expedite the trial and dispose of it within one year from the date of receipt of the order. The Court also expressed hope that the informant would not cause any delay in the proceedings.

Facts

This is a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Deepshri W/o Vinay Badhe, who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 201 of 2019 registered at Osmanpura Police Station, District Aurangabad, for offences including cheating and forgery. The applicant had previously sought anticipatory bail, which was initially rejected, then granted by the Sessions Court, and subsequently cancelled. She was arrested on September 18, 2021, and has been in custody since. The charge-sheet has been filed, and the trial is ongoing. The applicant argues that further custody is unnecessary as the investigation is complete and the trial is being delayed by the informant. The prosecution contends that the applicant, as Chief Executive of SMK Global Security Solutions India Private Limited, along with another accused, misappropriated approximately Rs. 1,50,00,000/- by not depositing EPF and ESIC contributions for security guards between 2009 and 2019, using forged documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed? The applicant argued that her further custody is not required, that she has been in jail since September 18, 2021, and that the trial is being delayed by the informant. She also pointed to independent witnesses whose statements do not support the prosecution's allegations of embezzlement and suggested the informant's inaction led to dues in professional tax, service tax, GST, EPF & ESIC. The applicant relied on Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigating and Anr. and Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI regarding directions for undertrial prisoners and economic offences. 2. Whether the applicant's past conduct, including obtaining anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court while a similar application was pending before the High Court, warrants denial of bail? The prosecution highlighted this conduct, stating it led to the cancellation of her earlier bail and that she had also withdrawn a subsequent bail application before the High Court. The prosecution argued that strong evidence exists against the applicant and her conduct disentitles her to bail.