Mumbai, October 8, 2024 — In a significant development in the ongoing probe into a fraudulent loan disbursal scheme by Dhansuvidha Finance, the City Civil & Sessions Court at Greater Bombay, presided over by Hon’ble Judge N.G. Shukla, has granted conditional bail to 10 accused employees arrested in connection with the case. The bail was granted under Criminal Bail Application No. 794 of 2024.
The bail plea pertains to Crime No. 76 of 2024 registered at the DCB CID Unit XII, initially lodged as Crime No. 144 of 2024 at Aarey Sub Police Station. The accused are alleged to have played roles in a scam involving the collection of ₹1475 each from multiple victims under the pretext of loan disbursals.
Background of the Case
The accused were all employees of a financial establishment known as Dhansuvidha Finance. The complaint alleges that the firm lured customers by promising personal loans upon the payment of ₹1475 as processing fees. After collecting the amount, neither the loan was sanctioned nor was the money returned.
The Enforcement Wing of the Mumbai Police, including the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), arrested a total of 24 individuals in the case, including the proprietor and manager of the firm, who were alleged to be the main masterminds behind the fraudulent operation.
Details of the Accused Granted Bail
The 10 accused granted bail are:
- Ankit Subedar Yadav, 21, from Vasai
- Satyajit Devidas Waghmare, 20, from Malad East
- Prasad Dattatray Landge, 19, from Malad East
- Sunil Vinod Kumar Jaisawar, 21, from Goregaon East
- Prashant Ramesh Ayvale, 24, from Malad East
- Shreyas Mahesh Davande, 19, from Nallasopara East
- Vikram Ramar Padayachi, 22, from Aarey Colony
- Deepika Vipinkumar Singh, 34, from Umrale
- Anju Sundarraj, 24, from Aarey Milk Colony
- Kalpana Sudalai Kumar, 30, from Aarey Milk Colony
All the accused were in judicial custody and have been identified as tele-callers or junior employees in the company.
Court’s Observations
Judge Shukla, while delivering the bail order, noted that:
- The accused were employees working under the direction of the firm’s proprietor (Accused No.1) and manager (Accused No.17).
- The prosecution did not establish personal dishonest intent on the part of the applicants.
- The applicants were following instructions as part of their employment and acted as intermediaries without a key role in decision-making.
The court ruled that prima facie, the more serious offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act were not attracted against these applicants.
However, the court emphasized the importance of cooperation with the investigation and imposed several conditions on the accused.
Bail Conditions Imposed
The court allowed bail for each of the 10 accused upon the furnishing of:
- A personal bond of ₹30,000 with one solvent surety.
- Alternatively, a cash deposit of ₹30,000 in lieu of surety, valid for a period of four weeks.
The conditions also included:
- Appearance before the DCB CID Unit on specific dates: October 11, 14, and 16, and thereafter whenever summoned in writing.
- Prohibition from tampering with evidence or changing passwords to email accounts and digital devices.
- Submission of email passwords and prohibition on data manipulation of seized devices.
- Ban on leaving the country without prior court permission.
- Mandatory submission of passports (or affidavit if not in possession) within two weeks of release.
- Submission of proof of residential address and contact details of the accused and two close relatives, and updating them as necessary.
- Strict warning against intimidating witnesses or obstructing the investigation.
Accused No.1 Denied Bail
The court rejected the bail plea of Kiran Surendra Sinha, 52, an accountant and Accused No.1 in the case. He had been taken into Police Custody Remand (PCR) on the day of the hearing, and the court found that further custodial interrogation was necessary.
Legal Representation
- The applicants were represented by Advocate Manish Kanojiya.
- The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Chaitrali Panshikar, who opposed the bail on the grounds that the accused had access to sensitive investor data and could potentially interfere with the investigation.
Implications and Next Steps
The bail order provides temporary relief to the 10 accused employees, but the court’s refusal to grant bail to the key operator signals that the investigation is far from over. The Economic Offences Wing continues to probe the depth and extent of the scam, which allegedly defrauded multiple victims under the guise of micro-loan disbursal.
The firm’s modus operandi, scale of operations, and digital infrastructure remain under scrutiny, with forensic analysis underway on the seized mobile phones, laptops, and computers.
As the case progresses, more clarity is expected on how widespread the scam was, and how many individuals or families may have been duped.