Bombay High Court
Dr. Vaishali Jagannath Jamdar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ... on 12 August, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7870
(1) ba.681.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.681 OF 2025
Dr. Vaishali Jagannath Jamdar
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Cyber Police
Station, Nagpur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sunil V. Manohar, Senior Counsel a/b Mr. Nitin Jachak, Counsel for the
applicant.
Mr. D. V. Chauhan, Public Prosecutor along with Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for
State.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
RESERVED ON : 29.07.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12.08.2025
1. By this application under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the
applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime
No.24/2025 registered with Cyber Police Station,
Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections
66(c) of the Information Technology Act, under
Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(1),
340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the
applicant is arrested on 23.05.2025.
2. The crime is registered on the basis of a
report lodged by Ravindra Patil, who is working as
Junior Administrative Officer at the office of the
Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division since
01.09.2021. The said office had received complaints
(2) ba.681.2025
about the creation of bogus Shalarth IDs and
withdrawal of salary on the basis of the same, by the
teachers of private unaided schools, which are not in
existence. Therefore, on 23.08.2024, a Committee
to examine these allegations was formed. During
the inquiry, it revealed that without there being
creation of Shalarth IDs by the office of the Deputy
Director of Education, Nagpur Division, the Shalarth
IDs were created, without the draft for the same,
being generated by the office of Deputy Director.
During the tenure of the present applicant allegedly
from 20.12.2020 to 24.05.2023, 211 fake Shalarth
IDs were created in respect of private aided and
partially aided teachers and non-teaching staff and
caused the loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of
Rs.145,88,31,698/-. On the basis of the said
allegations, the crime is registered against the
present applicant.
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant, who submitted that the tenure of the
present applicant as an incharge Deputy Director of
Education was from 20.12.2020 to 24.05.2023. He
invited my attention towards the scheme, in view of
the Government Resolution dated 07.11.2012 and
submitted that as per the said Government
Resolution, the entire data entry has to be carried out
by the headmaster and the work assigned to the
Deputy Director was the supervisory work. Thus, the
entire data entry was filled up by the concerned
(3) ba.681.2025
headmaster. As far as the present applicant is
concerned, who was only in the Supervisory capacity.
The subsequent Government Resolution dated
20.12.2006 cast the responsibility upon a special task
force. Thus, as far as the applicant is concerned,
who was not assigned the work of filling any
information in the Shalarth ID. She was posted at
Nagpur for the period mentioned above as Deputy
Director of Education, Nagpur Division. In view of
the guidelines issued dated 29.03.2019 by the
Commissioner of Education, the applicant was under
an obligation to pass the necessary order in the
prescribed format for entering the name of the
employees in the Shalarth Pranali. In view of the
said communication, she has issued offline orders for
entering the names of concerned teaching and non-
teaching employees in the Shalarth Pranali, on the
basis of the proposals forwarded by the concerned
Education Officer. During her tenure, as Deputy
Director of Education, there was deficiency, but it was
not the applicant, who has filled up information. In
fact, the Director of Education of Pune informed that
she had rejected total 48 personal approvals issued
by the concerned Education Officer and in the said
communication, she has specifically stated that the
concerned Education Officer is responsible for loss
caused to the Government Exchequer. Thus, he
submitted that as far as the involvement of the
present applicant is concerned, merely because she
works as Education Officer. The Investigating Officer
(4) ba.681.2025
has not ascertained whether she was assigned with
any duty as to the filling of any data. He also invited
my attention towards the order passed by this Court
in Amol Baban Sangar Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 382, wherein
this Court has observed that the Government
Resolution dated 07.11.2012 is not being followed in
it's letter and spirit and time and again, this Court is
coming across several Writ Petitions raising a
common grievance that the Deputy Director,
Education has refused to include name of a school
employee or a teacher on a consideration extraneous
to the Government Resolution dated 07.11.2012.
Undoubtedly, that ground irregular grant of approval
to the appointment of any school employee by the
Education officer, which is taken by the Education
Officer for refusing to include the name of such
employee in Shalarth system is something which is
completely alien to the Government Resolution dated
07.11.2012 and it could never be taken recourse to
by the Deputy Director, Education for recording his
refusal in such a matter.
4. Thus, he submitted that in view of the
observation of this Court in Writ Petitions wherein the
common grievance was raised and by passing order
the Division Bench of this Court held that once
approval is granted, the Deputy Director of Education
has no role to play and then Deputy Director would
not have refuse to enter the name, therefore no role
(5) ba.681.2025
is assigned to the present applicant as far as the data
entry in respect of the employees are concerned.
5. The another ground raised by the applicant
is that the ground for arrest are not communicated to
the present applicant and thus, it is contravention of
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section
50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On that
ground also, he submitted that the application of the
applicant deserves to be allowed as the arrest itself is
invalid.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed
the said application and submitted that the
recruitment of the teachers was not made since 2012
in the State of Maharashtra. By Government
Resolution dated 20.03.2019, the Deputy Director of
Education was given the authority to include the
names of teaching and non-teaching staff in Shalarth
system. As per the said Government Resolution, the
concerned Education Officer used to grant approval to
the employees and forward to the office of the
Deputy Director of Education. Thereafter, detailed
information regarding the said employees has to be
filled in the concerned school/management and
further forwarded to the office of the Superintendent,
Pay and Provident Fund. The Superintendent office
has been granted power and duty to verify the said
information and thereafter approve the salary bills in
respect of the concerned employees. During the
(6) ba.681.2025
inquiry conducted by various authorities, it was found
that there was huge irregularities in respect of grant
of Shalarth IDs. The process of Shalarth ID creation
has started during the tenure of the present applicant
and during her tenure, 211 fake IDs were created.
On the basis of which, these private aided and
partially aided teachers and non-teaching staff had
drawn salaries and thereby caused a loss to the said
Exchequer. In view of that, the application deserves
to be rejected.
7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of
the investigation papers, it reveals that there was no
recruitment of the teachers since 2012 in the State of
Maharashtra. On 07.11.2012 the Government of
Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution and by
the said Government Resolution, the duty of filling of
the entire data as to the employment of teachers i.e.
data entry was assigned to the headmaster of the
concerned school and the Deputy Education Officer
were assigned the duty to verify the same and
forward it again to the school and school has to
forward the salary bills to the Superintendent, Pay
and Provident Fund. By way of subsequent
Government Resolution, the duty was assigned to the
Education Officer. On perusal of the Government
Resolution dated 20.03.2019, authority to include the
name is given to Deputy Director of Education of
Division/Divisional President Secondary and Higher
(7) ba.681.2025
Secondary. As per the procedure laid down in the
said Government Resolution is as follows:
(i) After approval by the Education Officer or
Divisional President Secondary Higher
Secondary concern school will send proposal to
the Education Officer or Deputy Director or
Divisional President of Secondary and Higher
Secondary.
(ii) On receipt of proposal, same is to be
verified by the concerned person in order to
include the name and passed an order to that
effect.
(iii) After order is passed by the Deputy
Director/Divisional President of
Secondary/High Secondary, name of the
concerned employee is included in Shalarth
Pranali.
(iv) After including the name of an employee
in Shalarth Pranali, draft is made available on
the login of headmaster.
(v) Office of headmaster will fill the remaining
information and forward draft to the
Superintendent, Pay and Provident Fund Unit,
Zilla Parishad.
(vi) The Superintendent, Pay and Provident
Fund Unit have to verify the information and
sanction draft thereafter the Shalarth ID is
generated.
8. Thus, as per the Government Resolution
dated 20.03.2019, after approval by Education
(8) ba.681.2025
Officer the concerned school has to send proposal to
the Education Officer or Deputy Director or Divisional
President of Secondary and Higher Secondary. The
entry in the proposal are to be verified by the Deputy
Director of Education / Divisional President and
thereafter order is to be passed by the above said
authorities to the extent of entering the name of the
concerned employee in Shalarth Pranali. Thus, this
procedure shows the responsibility was on the
Deputy Director of Education to verify the entire
information forwarded to it after approval is granted
before including the name of said employees in
Shalarth scheme. On perusal of the investigation
papers, it reveals that the applicant was holding
additional charge of Deputy Director of Education
from 20.12.2020 to 24.05.2023. During her tenure,
211 fake IDs were created. On the basis of which
these private aided and partially aided teachers and
non-teaching staff had drawn the salary. In total
Nagpur Division 680 fake Shalarth IDs were created
and loss is caused to the State Exchequer to the tune
of Rs.145,88,31,698/-. Thus, the applicant was the
responsible officer of education department. The ID
and password required for creating the Shalarth ID
were given to the Deputy Director of Education. The
applicant by directing the co-accused who were
working in her office had created 211 fake IDs, due
to which those persons have continued on the service
and drawn the salaries and not only the salaries, but
they have also drawn the arrears of the salaries.
(9) ba.681.2025
Thus, the involvement of the present applicant,
admittedly, reveals from the investigation papers. It
further reveals during the investigation that the
applicant is not only involved in creating the fake ID,
but the statement of the witnesses recorded during
the investigation also shows that she has demanded
the gratification amount from the various employees
before granting of the approval. Learned Senior
Counsel submitted that these statements of those
people to whom the approval was not granted.
Admittedly, this aspect is to be considered after the
investigation is completed and at the time of trial. As
far as the involvement of the applicant is concerned,
which reveals from the investigation papers.
9. Another ground raised by the learned
Senior Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant
was arrested on 23.05.2025 and she was not served
with the grounds of arrest and therefore, the
guarantee of life and liberty as enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India available to
citizens is violated by the investigating agency. On
that ground itself he submitted that the application
deserves to be allowed.
10. He placed reliance on Vihaan Kumar Vs.
State Haryana in Special Leave Petition (Crl)
13320/2024 decided on 07.02.2025, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue and
observed that the stand taken before the High Court
(10) ba.681.2025
was that the appellant's wife was informed about the
arrest. Information about the arrest is completely
different from the grounds of arrest. The grounds of
arrest are different from the arrest memo. The arrest
memo incorporates the name of the arrested person,
his permanent address, present address, particulars
of FIR and Section applied, place of arrest, date and
time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the
accused and name, address and phone number of the
person to whom information about arrest has been
given. We have perused the arrest memo in the
present case. The same contains only the information
stated above and not the grounds of arrest. The
information about the arrest is completely different
from information about the grounds of arrest. Mere
information of arrest will not amount to furnishing
grounds of arrest.
11. It is further observed in para No.31 that
all courts, including the High Court, have a duty to
uphold fundamental rights. Once a violation of a
fundamental right under Article 22(1) was alleged, it
was the duty of the High Court to go into the said
contention and decide in one way or the other. When
a violation of Article 22(1) is alleged with respect to
grounds of arrest, there can be possible two
contentions raised: (a) that the arrested person was
not informed of the grounds of arrest, or (b)
purported information of grounds of arrest does not
contain any ground of arrest.
(11) ba.681.2025
12. As far as the first contention is concerned,
the person who is arrested can discharge his burden
by simply alleging that grounds of arrest were not
informed to him. If such an allegation is made in the
pleadings, the entire burden is on the arresting
agency or the State to satisfy the court that effective
compliance was made with the requirement of Article
22(1). It is further observed that aforesaid provision
of requirement for communicating the grounds of
arrest, to be purposeful, is also required to be
communicated to the friends, relatives or such other
persons of the accused as may be disclosed or
nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of
giving such information as provided under Section
50A of the CrPC. The purpose of inserting Section
50A of the CrPC, making it obligatory on the person
making arrest to inform about the arrest to the
friends, relatives or persons nominated by the
arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to
take immediate and prompt actions to secure the
release of the arrested person as permissible under
the law. The arrested person, because of his
detention, may not have immediate and easy access
to the legal process for securing his release, which
would otherwise be available to the friends and
relatives.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant
submitted that the communication issued to the
friends, relatives of the applicant nowhere discloses
(12) ba.681.2025
as to the ground of arrest. Being it is a violation of
the fundamental right of the applicant, requirement
of communicating the grounds of arrest is not
complied with, in view of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution, such arrest may be rendered illegal.
14. Admittedly, now issue whether such
compliance is required in each and every case is
referred before the larger Bench, but at present the
observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vihaan
Kumar Vs. State Haryana referred supra, holds the
field.
15. As far as the merits of the matter is
concerned, involvement of the applicant reveals in an
economic office. As regards economic offence, while
granting bail the Court has to take into consideration
nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support
thereof and the severity of the punishment.
16. As far as the involvement of the applicant
in the alleged offence is concerned, which reveals
from the investigation papers, but as the grounds of
arrest are not communicated to the applicant and
therefore such arrest in the light of the judgment in
the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State Haryana
referred supra is illegal.
17. The guarantee of life and liberty as
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
(13) ba.681.2025
available to citizens of this country cannot be denied
even to an accused who is in custody and surely not
to a suspect who is sought to be converted to an
accused on an investigation and then from an
accused to a convict on trial. It is an obligation upon
the State as well as on the Court to ensure that there
is no infringement of the indivisible right of citizen to
life and liberty, which he cannot be deprived of
without following the procedure established by law.
The Cr.P.C. describes the manner and to the extent
of what a person can be denuded of his liberty and,
therefore, needs a strict compliance. Any violation of
the prescribed procedure in the matter of arrest can,
therefore, liable to be declared as illegal.
18. In the light of the above facts and
circumstances, as the grounds of arrest are not
communicated to the present applicant and therefore
the arrest itself is illegal, in view of that, the applicant
deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The applicant Dr. Vaishali Jagannath Jamdar shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.24/2025 registered with Cyber Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 66(c) of the Information Technology Act, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(1), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on (14) ba.681.2025 executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties of the like amount.
(iii) The applicant shall attend the Police Station once in a week on Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. till completion of the investigation and shall cooperate with the investigating agency.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Nagpur District without prior permission of the District Court Nagpur.
(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the present case and shall not indulge in similar type of the activities.
(vi) The applicant shall attend the proceeding before the trial Court without seeking any exemption unless there are exceptional circumstances.
(vii) The applicant shall furnish her cell phone number and residential address along with the names of two relatives along with their address proof.
The application is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Sarkate Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 12/08/2025 15:13:42