The Bombay High Court has rejected the pre-arrest bail applications of two sisters, Madhuri Samay Gangurde and Swati Nitin Ramraje, who are facing charges under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, for allegedly engaging in illegal money lending without a valid licence.
Two separate FIRs were registered with Satpur and Panchvati police stations in Nashik in March 2025. Both FIRs were based on complaints by Kalpana Sonar, an officer in the Co-operative Department, who alleged that the sisters had lent money to multiple individuals unlawfully.
While rejecting the pleas, Justice Rajesh S. Patil observed, “Once the applicants are protected by a pre-arrest bail order, there are less chances that they will co-operate with the investigation.” The judge added that after receiving notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicants “chose not to co-operate with the police machinery” and instead approached the Sessions Court, which had also denied them relief earlier.
As per 35(3) of the BNSS, the police may issue summons to the accused person and record his/her statement in cases where arrest is not warranted.
The prosecution claimed that a raid at the sisters’ homes revealed incriminating materials. At Madhuri Gangurde’s residence, six blank cheques signed by various individuals were seized, while a loan agreement and a promissory note signed by complainant Kalpana Sonar were found at Swati Ramraje’s residence. Additionally, property papers and other personal documents were recovered.
According to the prosecution, Swati Ramraje had allegedly threatened a builder to pressure Sonar to repay a loan. It was also alleged that Sonar had borrowed Rs 1.4 lakh but repaid Rs 4.7 lakh, indicating exorbitant interest rates of up to 30% per month.
The defence argued that the sisters were not engaged in money lending as a business and that the transactions were either personal or part of a small savings group (Bachat Gat). However, the court found the explanation unconvincing. “If it is a Bhisee or a Bachat Gat, then there was no need for blank cheques signed by different individuals to be lying in the house,” Justice Patil remarked.
Citing Supreme Court judgments, the court concluded that while custodial interrogation may not always be essential, a prima facie case cannot be ignored. Consequently, the court rejected both anticipatory bail applications.
