Akashrai Subodh Tyagi Harshit Atre Vs State of Maharashtra Bombay Sessions Court Criminal Bail Application No 70 of 2015

BA 70­15
BEFORE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT AT BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, AT MUMBAI. BAIL APPLICATION NO.70 OF 2015 IN REMAND APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2015 IN
C.R. NO.33 OF 2012

Akashrai Subodh Tyagi @ Harshit Atre
Aged: 35 Years, Occupation: Unemployed,
Residing at 5 /2202, Raheja Classic,
Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053. …Applicant.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of EOW in C.R. No.33 of 2012) …Respondent.

Advocate Karnik for the Applicant.
SPP Advocate Malankar for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : SPECIAL JUDGE, MPID ACT. D. P. SURANA (C. R. No.36) DATED : 23rd December, 2015.

ORDER:

1. Accused who was came to be arrested on 08.12.2015 in C.R. No.33 of 2012 of EOW, Unit­11, is seeking bail for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 120­B r/w. 34 of IPC and sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and section 3 of the MPID Act.

2. Brief facts. ­ That, on the basis of information of Chiranjiv Chandrakumar Goswami alleging fraudulent default by the financial establishment – “Red Carpet Entertainment Private Limited and Red Carpet
Finance Pvt. Ltd.” Accused being the director of the said financial establishment was came to be arrested. As per investigating agency, it revealed that around 25,000 investors deposited an amount of Rs.117.90 + crores and accused financial establishment has duped around Rs.40 crores of the investors deposits.

3.Heard Advocate Karnik for applicant, SPP Advocate Malankar for the State and IO API Dhus for the investigating agency. Perused application, documents placed by applicant on record and reply filed by
the investigating agency.

4.Though application is opposed, it is apparent that none of the offences levelled against the applicant prescribe punishment for more than 7 years. Applicant is sufficiently interrogated in the said crime. He is behind the bars since 08.12.2015. Case pertains to documentary evidence. Most of the properties of the financial establishment is already secured in the said crime. Even as per the IO Rs.7.5 crores cash is still lying in the bank account, an amount of Rs.8 crores are sent to Delhi Patiala Court, 31 immovable
properties of financial establishment are secured for attachment in the said crime and an amount of Rs.77.74 + crores is refunded by the applicant to investors. The residential address of the applicant is not disputed to be at Andheri (West), Mumbai. The properties seized and the amount lying in the bank can take care of the depositors amount. Under above circumstances, I do not find any purpose will be
served in keeping the applicant behind the bars. In the result, I proceed to pass following order:­


ORDER

Accused applicant is ordered to be released on bail on his executing PB of Rs.5 lakhs with one or more sureties to make up the like amount with conditions that:­

a)Accused shall mark his presence with IO on alternate day at the office of EOW, Unit­11 between 10.00 am to 1.00 pm and as and when called by IO.

b) Accused shall cooperate with the investigating agency.

c) Accused shall not in any manner tamper with the evidence or witnesses.

d) Accused shall not in any manner dispose of any of immovable properties in his name or in the name of financial establishment without the permission of this Designated Court.

e) Accused shall surrender his passport with the IO and shall not leave Mumbai till filing of chargesheet and thereafter, shall not leave India without the permission of this designated court. Request of Advocate Karnik to release accused on cash bail provisionally for 8 weeks is allowed.
Accused is ordered to be released provisionally for 8 weeks on his cash deposit of Rs.5 lakhs. The amount is to be accepted even after treasury hours.

Date 23/12/2015.

(D.P. Surana) Spl. Judge, MPID Act & addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Order Dictated on : 23/12/2015 Transcribed on : 29/12/2015 Signed on : 29/12/2015

“I affirm that the contents of the PDF file order are the same, word to word, as per the original order.”
Name of Steno with post :­ Arun A Mudaliyar (H.G. Stenographer) Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) :­ HHJ Shri. D. P. SURANA (CR 36) Date of pronouncement of order :­ 29/12/2015 Order signed by the P.O. on :­ 23/12/2015 Order uploaded on :­ 04/01/2016