Mumbai, India – July 20, 2024 – A Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act in Greater Mumbai today rejected the bail application of Mittal Yatin Gudka, 43, who is accused of orchestrating a multi-crore investment fraud along with her absconding husband. Special Judge N.G. Shukla, presiding over the case, found sufficient prima facie material to indicate Gudka’s active involvement in deceiving investors.

Mittal Gudka, who claims to be a private tuition teacher, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 89 of 2023 registered with Mulund Police Station. The charges against her include cheating, criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act.

Allegations of a Sophisticated Scheme

The prosecution’s case centers on allegations that Mittal Gudka and her husband, the absconding Accused No. 1, actively induced the informant to invest a substantial amount in shares. The husband, who purportedly dealt in shares and claimed to have franchises of M/s Ventura Security Limited, allegedly boasted of earning huge profits.

According to the informant, the couple would arrive in luxurious cars, creating an impression of immense wealth and success. This deceptive display, combined with their insistence, led the informant to transfer a total of ₹15,20,000/- in seven installments, with one additional installment in cash, for investment in shares. Crucially, the informant alleged that Mittal Gudka herself personally assured the informant that she would return the invested amount by selling her ornaments if the promised returns were not realized within six months. It was on the strength of this assurance that the informant proceeded with the investment.

However, the promised returns never materialized. A cheque issued by Accused No. 1 was also dishonored, leading the informant to file a separate criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The FIR leading to Mittal Gudka’s arrest details her active role as a beneficiary of the fraudulently obtained funds and her direct promise of repayment.

Defense Seeks Bail, Citing Limited Role

Mr. Nilesh Parab and Mr. Mehul Thakkar, the learned advocates representing Mittal Gudka, argued that her role in the alleged crime was “very limited.” They contended that it was primarily her husband, Accused No. 1, who had taken the ₹15,20,000/- from the informant. They emphasized that Gudka’s livelihood comes from providing tuitions, suggesting she is not significantly involved in financial dealings. The defense also stated that the investigation was “almost completed” and her continued detention was unnecessary. They pointed out that her in-laws and a 20-year-old son were dependent on her.

Furthermore, the defense highlighted that in the criminal case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Magistrate’s order had dropped her name, implying a lack of direct involvement.

Prosecution Reveals Extensive Fraud and Financial Irregularities

Ld. APP Mrs. Chaitrali Panshikar, representing the State and instructed by the Economic Offenses Wing (EOW), strongly opposed the bail. She informed the court that while the FIR initially pertained to ₹15,20,000/-, the ongoing investigation had unearthed other investors, revealing a total fraud amount of ₹2,42,70,000/- involving at least seven depositors so far. She stressed that the number of victims could increase as the investigation progresses.

A critical piece of evidence presented by the prosecution was the discovery of a staggering ₹85,00,000/- in Mittal Gudka’s bank accounts. The APP argued that such a “huge amount cannot be earned in the profession of tuition,” directly challenging the applicant’s claim of limited means. The prosecution also expressed concerns that if released on bail, Gudka might abscond to another country, especially given her husband’s absconding status and his alleged “link in four countries,” which would jeopardize securing her presence for trial.

Ld. Advocate Mr. V.K. Tiwari, representing the intervenor/informant, supported the prosecution’s stance. He presented bank statements of the applicant, corroborating the presence of ₹85,00,000/- across various accounts, with deposits and withdrawals consistently in lakhs of rupees. He argued that the Magistrate’s decision to drop her name from the Section 138 NI Act case was because she was not the drawer of the dishonored cheque, not an exoneration from the current fraud charges. He also submitted that two vehicles had been disposed of, and alleged that the applicant’s son had threatened the informant.

Court’s Firm Rejection

After considering all submissions and reviewing the evidence, Special Judge N.G. Shukla observed that the FIR clearly indicated Mittal Gudka’s presence alongside her husband when insisting on the investment. More importantly, her explicit assurance to the informant about repaying the amount by selling her ornaments, which was a key factor in the informant’s decision to invest, demonstrated her direct involvement.

The Judge noted that bank statements submitted by the intervenor plainly showed a total of ₹85,00,000/- in Gudka’s bank accounts, with transactions involving “lakhs of rupees” in both deposits and withdrawals. The court specifically stated that the “particulars of deposited amount clearly indicate that, such huge amount can not be earned from tuition fees.”

The court found that there was “sufficient material showing involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime” prima facie. It also took into account the allegations of disposed vehicles and threats made by the applicant’s son to the informant.

Concluding that the investigation was still in progress and that releasing the applicant on bail at this stage could “create hurdle in investigation in collecting information of deposits, the amount of fraud and property of accused to be attached,” the court rejected the argument that her name being dropped from the Section 138 NI Act case granted her a clean chit in the current fraud and MPID Act case.

In light of these findings, Bail Application No. 521 of 2024 was rejected and stands disposed of.