BA 898/24 in CR No.882/24 MHCC020166682024

BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.898 OF 2024 IN C. R. NO. 882 OF 2024

Pramod Devram Bhanji ]
Age – 50 years, Occ – Business ]
Residing at Bhanji House, Shiv Gally, ]
Near Vetal Mandir, Versova Andheri (W), ]
Mumbai-400 061. ]… Applicant/ Accused no.2

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra, (Through Malwani Police Station, Mumbai) ] ]… Respondents

Appearances:Ld. Advocate T. R. Patel a/w Ld. Advocate Nikesh Yadav for Applicant.
Ld. SPP Suryawanshi for the State/ Respondent.
Ld. Advocate Neha Patil for Intervenor- Mrs. Sadhana Shivaji Bhandare.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE N. P. MEHTA

(Court Room no. 7)

DATED : 4th December, 2024.

ORAL ORDER

1.The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused Pramod Devram Bhanji, under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail.

2. A case being C.R. No.882 of 2024 is registered with Malwani Police Station against the present Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”) as well as Section 3 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter
referred as “MPID Act”).

3.Application is resisted by the Prosecution by filing their say at Exhibit No.02

4.It is the case of prosecution that, in the year 2009, with the aim of having a good organization of women in informant area, sixty women came together to form a women’s body called Mata Ramabai Mahila Mandal (hereinafter referred as “said Mandal”). Informant’s mother name Sindhubai Kashinath Walve was the president of the said Mandal when it was established. In the year 2015, they were thinking that all the women in said Mandal should have their own house so they decided to contact accused no.1 by phone on 15.08.2015, he allegedly gave them a new scheme at Madh at Sadh and in the said scheme he said that he will give one house each for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only), they liked this plan so sixty women of their circle decided to pay for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) each and buy a room from him. Accordingly, informant and Ujwala Santosh Ingle both allegedly met accused no.1 at Madh and they told accused no.1 that sixty women of their group are willing to take a room from him. Brother of applicant Avinash said that Rs.4,00,000/(Rupees Four Lakhs only) for one house and Rs.2,40,00,000/(Rupees Two Crores Forty Lakhs only) for 60 houses.

5.It is further alleged that to complete the said transaction, a meeting was held on 20.08.2016 at the house of informant’s mother namely Sindhubai Walve at Shivajinagar, Madh in the presence of sixty women of the said Mandal and accused no.1 wherein Mr. Mangal Nana Ingole and Mr. Jagan Vishwanath
Kardil stood as witnesses. During the said meeting, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into between accused no.1 and complainant and others. As per the terms and conditions stipulated in the said Settlement Agreement (MoU), accused no.1 would construct 60 rooms (each ad-measuring 9.5 wide and 13 feet long). In return they decided to pay accused no.1 Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) for each room for a total amount of Rs.2,40,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty Lakhs
only) for sixty rooms.

6.The period of the said transaction is from 12.07.2015 to 12.07.2018 in the MoU. After the construction of the said room was started on 12.07.2017 and completed on 12.07.2018, it was decided that accused no.1 will purchase the said property for 60 women.

7.On 20.08.2016, at the house of informant mother Sindhubai Walve while preparing the sample documents, they fixed the advance amount of sixty women which was to be given to accused no.1. Accused no.1 gave them a delivery receipt as allegedly having received the said amount and it was signed by accused no.1 and witnessed by Mr. Mangal Nana Ingole and Shri Jagan Kardile. All women allegedly gave remaining amount to accused no.1 through cash, cheque and bank transfer of
Rs.2,10,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Ten Lakhs only) within the prescribed time till August 2018. After paying the said amount, they asked accused no.1 to give them the possession of the said rooms, after that, accused no.1 delivered to some of their women the custody of the room. In order to defraud investors. Agreement of sale, affidavit, irrevocable Power of Attorney, General Power of Attorney came to be prepared in favour of accused no.1 and his brother-in-law accused no.2.

8.It is submitted there is no any transaction between the applicant and the complainant and alleged witnesses. No single amount has been transferred to the present applicant. It is alleged that all the financial decision and the money has been given to the other co-accused which is spelt out in the statement. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed against the other accused and they have produced various documents along with statements and from the bare perusal of the said statement and the MoU produced by the complainant, appears to be manipulated and false created. There is nothing on the record to show that the present applicant was knowing the
complainant and the other witnesses. The entire transaction is alleged to have taken between the applicant and his brother and the alleged amount stated to be given to the other accused. There
is no agreement ever entered between applicant and the alleged witnesses. The present applicant / accused have not received pecuniary gain as alleged in the present F.I.R, which is Rs.2,40,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Forty Lakhs only) and the said allegations is completely baseless.

9.On going through the charge-sheet it appears to this Court that applicant along with his brother accepted money from several women belonging to lower strata of the society wherein they
agreed to provide them with rooms and executed documents to that end. Applicant / accused executed agreement for sale and power of attorney, which granted him certain rights concerning to
vacant land on behalf of these women. Applicant also executed affidavit affirming that he is absolute owner of certain land and pledged to execute a conveyance deed in favour of women of this
organization.

10.After executing document in favour of several women, who paid money to Avinash, both applicant and his brother assured them to provide with rooms. However, no construction work ever commenced on the site till date. There is no intention on the part of applicant and his brother to return the money to poor women.

Prima facie applicant along with his brother Avinash defrauded women of their hard earn money. Applicant was engaged with his brother Avinash throughout in collecting money and executing documents in favour of sixty odd women. It can not be said that applicant is not in receipt of any benefit of the scheme floated by them to defraud poor women. Applicant and his brother are
having sufficient funds with them to return the deposits to sixty odd women but have avoided to do so for no reason. Applicant’s involvement in crime under Section 3 of MPID Act is prima facie made out. Applicant is liable to refund deposit, which is public money. He has not shown any readiness and willingness to return the deposit of poor women. This Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to applicant / accused. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :ORDER

1. The present Bail Application No.898 of 2024 filed by the Applicant Pramod Devram Bhanji in connection with C.R. No.882 of 2024 is registered with Malwani Police Station against the present Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 3 and 4 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 is hereby rejected.

2. The present Bail Application No.898 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)

Date: 04/12/2024 Mumbai Dictated on : 04/12/2024 Draft given on : 05/12/2024 Signed by HHJ on : 05/12/2024 Digitally signed by NIKHIL PRAKASH MEHTA Date: 2024.12.05 16:39:23 +0530 (N. P. Mehta)
Designated Judge under The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, for Gr. Bombay CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT /ORDER”
On 05.12.2024 at 4.36 p.m. UPLOADED DATE AND TIME Ms. R. D. Tari NAME OF Stenographer Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) H.H.J. N. P. Mehta C.R. No.07 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 04.12.2024 Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on 05.12.2024 Judgment/Order uploaded on 05.12.2024