Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a bank employee accused of defrauding customers to the tune of Rs 46.58 lakh, despite her returning the money along with interest. The court noted that the investigation was still ongoing and that the full extent of the fraud, as well as the involvement of other individuals, needed to be ascertained.
The HC was hearing a plea by Sheetal Deshmukh, employed with Sadhana Sahakari Bank’s branch at Saswad, who is accused of allegedly siphoned off money from customers under the pretext of collecting deposits. Deshmukh reportedly issued bogus receipts and even closed fixed deposits fraudulently. An audit revealed the misappropriation of Rs 46.58 lakh, following which the bank lodged an FIR. The accused later returned the amount along with interest.
However, the high court emphasized that merely returning the money did not absolve the accused of criminal liability. “Returning back the money does not mean that there is an end of crime. The crime has already been committed, and the applicant is aware of her guilt, which she has admitted,” Justice Rajesh Patil observed on March 13.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, citing statements from affected customers that detailed how the accused allegedly duped them. The court also noted that the accused had written a letter to the bank’s chairman on September 17, 2024, admitting to issuing forged receipts and siphoning off funds. If not for the audit conducted by the bank, the applicant would have committed a fraud of a higher magnitude, the prosecution argued.
The court further highlighted that the affected customers were small shopkeepers and villagers with limited income. “The money lying in the bank is public money. By committing the present crime, the applicant has not only defrauded the customers and the bank but also the government,” the court remarked.
Dismissing the argument that the accused should be granted bail because she is a woman and has a child to look after, the court noted that her husband is unemployed and can care for the child.
The court stressed that the accused’s custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the money trail and identify other individuals possibly involved in the fraud. “There is a possibility of the applicant pressurising and threatening witnesses and tampering with evidence. If she is granted pre-arrest bail, the forensic audit will be hampered, making it difficult to determine the actual amount embezzled and all those involved,” the court stated.
