Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Mumbai court has granted bail to Sitaram Shetty @ Shashi, 56, a former director of “M/s. Subhadra Capital and Finance Pvt. Ltd.,” who was declared a proclaimed offender in connection with a fraudulent investment scheme. Special Judge D.P. Surana, presiding over the Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act), allowed Bail Application No. 32 of 2015 on May 7, 2015.
Shetty, who had been absconding for over a decade, surrendered before the designated court on March 9, 2015, and has been in custody since. He was the original accused No. 4 in MPID Case No. 9 of 2005, arising from C.R. No. 373/2004 of MIDC Police Station, Mumbai.
The Allegations
According to the prosecution, Sitaram Shetty, along with three other directors of M/s. Subhadra Capital and Finance Pvt. Ltd., allegedly committed a fraudulent default, duping investors of approximately Rs. 37,81,111/-. The company is accused of receiving deposits by promising “commercially not practicable and non viable” returns, such as doubling the invested amount within four and a half years. The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) stated that the company duped around 36 investors out of nearly 50 lakhs.
Arguments for Bail
Advocate Bijlani, representing Sitaram Shetty, argued that his client was suffering from Jaundice. He further highlighted that a chargesheet had already been filed, and the trial had commenced. A key point of the defense was that Shetty’s role in the alleged crime was “similar to the role of the other three co-accused who are already on bail.”
Regarding his long absence, Adv. Bijlani explained that Shetty had shifted to Pune due to threats from investors, where he met with an accident sustaining injuries to his head, hip, and leg. Due to a leg problem, he was then shifted to Bangalore. He asserted that Shetty, upon learning about the proclamation order, voluntarily surrendered to the court, demonstrating his bona fide intentions. Adv. Bijlani stressed that Shetty, at 56 years old, would not serve any purpose by remaining in custody and was willing to comply with any bail conditions.
Prosecution’s Opposition
The Ld. SPP, Adv. Kanojia, strongly opposed the bail, pointing out that Shetty was one of the directors who had duped a significant number of investors. She emphasized that he had been a “wanted accused” for the past 10 years and only surrendered after being declared a proclaimed offender, likely to prevent his property from being attached under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. The SPP argued that there was a strong possibility of Shetty absconding again if released on bail, thus fleeing from justice.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Special Judge D.P. Surana carefully considered the arguments from both sides. The court noted that the “role of present applicant is similar to that of other co-accused who were arrested and granted bail.” This parity in treatment with co-accused who are already out on bail was a significant factor. The court also observed that a supplementary chargesheet had been filed against Shetty, and two of his properties – one flat and one gala – had already been secured in connection with the crime.
Regarding Shetty’s health, the court noted that despite repeated requests, jail authorities “failed to produce the medical papers showing the physical and medical condition of the applicant,” rendering his claim of suffering from Jaundice “undisputed.”
The judge found that Shetty’s act of voluntarily surrendering showed “his bonafide attempts and his intention to remain present during the further trial.” The court also found “no material on record to suggest that during filing of the chargesheet applicant was intimated/informed.” With Shetty already having been in custody since March 9, 2015, the court concluded that “no purpose will be served in continuing him behind bars.”
To mitigate the prosecution’s concern about the risk of absconding, the court decided to impose strict conditions.
Bail Conditions
Sitaram Shetty @ Shashi has been ordered to be released on bail in C.R. No. 373/2004 of MIDC Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the MPID Act, subject to the following conditions:
- He must furnish a Personal Bond (PB) of Rs. 1 Lakh with one or more sureties to make up the like amount.
- He shall mark his presence with the Investigating Officer at the concerned police station every first Sunday between 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM until further orders.
- He shall not dispose of in any manner the secured property in the crime.
- He shall not miss a single date of the court proceeding in MPID Case No. 9/2005 unless exempted by the court.
- He shall not leave Mumbai without the prior permission of this designated Court.
The application was allowed, and the order was dated May 7, 2015.