Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act), at the City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, has rejected the bail application of Mr. Rahul Ramchandra Manjrekar, the alleged proprietor of Dhan Suvidha Finance Company. The order, in Bail Application No. 822 of 2024, was pronounced by His Honour Judge Shri N.G. Shukla (Court No. 20) on October 16, 2024.
Manjrekar, 36, a permanent resident of Santacruz East, Mumbai, is currently in judicial custody. He was seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Charges and Prosecution’s Case
Manjrekar was arrested in connection with Crime No. 76 of 2024 of DCB CID Unit-XII (initially registered as Crime No. 144 of 2024 at Arey Sub Police Station). The charges against him include offenses punishable under Sections 316 (2), 318 (4), and 3 (5) of the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) read with Section 66 (c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 3 of the MPID Act.
The prosecution’s case, in brief, alleges that Manjrekar, as the proprietor of Dhan Suvidha Finance Company, along with other employees, lured investors to deposit Rs. 2,950/- online with the promise of sanctioning loans. However, it is alleged that no such loans were sanctioned to any investors, and Manjrekar and co-accused No. 2 committed a large-scale fraud involving a huge amount of money deposited by the investors.
Arguments Presented
Ld. Advocate Mr. Manish Kanojia, representing the applicant, argued that Manjrekar had been in police custody for a sufficient period and his interrogation was complete. He pointed out that Manjrekar’s mobile phone, as well as computers and laptops from the company’s office, had been seized, with all relevant data presumably contained within these devices, thus eliminating any chance of tampering by the applicant. The defense further contended that prima-facie, Sections 316 and 318 of the BNS (likely referring to offenses related to cheating or fraud, equivalent to IPC sections) would not apply to the applicant. Mr. Kanojia also stated that the applicant was ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and prayed for bail.
Ld. APP Mrs. Chaitrali Panshikar, representing the State-EOW, strongly opposed the application. She asserted that Manjrekar is the “main culprit” as the proprietor of Dhan Suvidha Finance. She emphasized that the investigation is still in progress and expressed concerns that if released on bail, Manjrekar might tamper with evidence and abscond. Therefore, the APP urged the court to reject the bail application.
Court’s Decision
After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the police’s “say” (reply), Judge N.G. Shukla observed that from the First Information Report (FIR) and the police’s statement, Manjrekar appears to be the “main culprit” as the proprietor of the company. The court highlighted that the company insisted on a deposit of Rs. 2,950/- but failed to provide loans, leading to a prima-facie finding of “dishonest intention on the part of the applicant” in the alleged offense.
Given that the investigation is still ongoing and considering the applicant’s “main role” in the alleged fraud, the court concluded that he is “not entitled for bail.”
Consequently, Bail Application No. 822 of 2024 was rejected and disposed of.