1
BEFORE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT AT
BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, AT MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION No.50 OF 2015.
IN
C.R.NO.33 OF 2015
IN
R.A.NO.21 OF 2015.
Adil Akhtar Jaipuri,
Е
Applicant/Accused.

Е
Respondent.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through
Economic Offence Wing
Unit III, Mumbai.
Appearance :
Adv. Sadanand Shetty @ Adv. Snehal for the Applicant.
SPP Adv. Kanojia for the State.
Adv. Rathod for investor/intervener.
Coram : His Honour Judge
D.P. Surana.
Dated : 01/08/2015.
ORAL ORDER
This is an application u/sec.439 of the Cr.P.C., whereby
applicant, who was came to be arrested on 01/06/2015, is seeking
bail in C.R. No.33/2015 for the offence punishable u/sec.420,
120нB of the I.P. Code and sec.3 of the Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

2
2.

It is the case of prosecution that applicant is one of
the partner of main accused Shekar Chandrashekar. That, present
applicant, his Father Akter, m/acc. Shekar, Leena Paul, Naseer
Jaipuri, hatched conspiracy and floated several schemes through
their Financial Establishment УKind Group of IndiaФ.

Accused
Salman Firoz Rizvi was General Manager of the Financial
Establishment. The schemes were commercially not viable and
impracticable, arising out of promises by the accused, to pay 10%
to 20% of the amount every month and 300% to 1500 % returns
to the investors on maturity. It is alleged that accused through
their financial establishment accepted huge deposits of Rs.5,000/н
to 5/н Lakhs from small depositors in several schemes namely
УWeekly New Year BonanzaФ, УNew year BonanzaФ, УChristmas
SantaclausФ, УOnam SpecialФ, etc., and collected deposits from
around 450 investors to the tune of around 19 Crores.

It is
further alleged that there was no business being run by the
Financial Establishment and the amount received by them from
one depositor was to offer to other depositors. It is further alleged
by the prosecution that accused utilized the said amount for their
enjoyment, amusement and luxury. They committed fraudulent
default of the amount of depositors. It is further alleged by the
prosecution that amount so collected was by deceiving the
depositors.
It is further alleged that accused did not stop but continued
receiving amount from the depositors after maturity date on false
pretext/represented to the depositors that Income Tax raid is
conducted at the office of Financial Establishment and they
3
(depositors) will received the amount only after deposit of 10% of
the amount from their deposits. It is alleged that all most all the
amount received by the accused and his Financial Establishment
was in cash.
It is further alleged that in the raid conducted at the office
premises of the Financial Establishment, several documents, cash
of Rs.3.50 Lakhs, jeweleries, 12 mobiles, 117 watches, 25 Goggles
etc., were seized. Severally branded clothes, male female foot
wears, purses, ladies tops, goggles, iнpad, T.V. sets, DVD’s, costly
watches, perfumes, jeweleries, etc., were also seized from the
residence of the co accused Shekar and her live in partner н coн
accused Leena.
It is alleged against the applicant that he has induced
depositors to invest their amount. That applicant has given
intentional
false
information
about
main
accused
Shekar
Chandrashekar to the depositors. He has also given false
information about the scheme and the financial establishment
whereas, he was aware that there is no business at all run by the
accused or the financial establishment. That several documents
were found in the house search of the accused. That he fabricated
false documents for the purpose of cheating investors.
3.

Heard Adv. Sadanand Shetty for applicant. Also heard
SPP Adv. Kanojia for state and I.O. P.I. Khedakar for EOW Unit VII.
Also heard Adv. Rathod for victim/investors.
4.

Adv. Shetty submitted that applicant was came to be
4
arrested on 01/06/2015. He was sufficiently interrogated under
police custody remained till 08/06/2015. That investigation is
completed and chargeнsheet is filed. That no purpose will be
served in keeping the applicant behind the bars. He further
submitted that none of the offence levelled against the applicant
prescribes punishment more then 7 years and hence accused
applicant is entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted
that applicant has no criminal antecedent.
Adv. Shetty further submitted that the coнaccused Shekar
has given undertaking to repay the entire amount of the
depositors within the period of 3 months of his release. That the
father of applicant has also given his ancestral property, situated
at Gazal Villa, A/2, Model Town CHS, above Allahbad Bank,
Gulmohar Road, JVPD Scheme, Juhu, Mumbaiн49, as a security,
which is worth Rs.50 Crores. He further submitted that in the said
undertaking on affidavit, the father of the applicant has further
undertaken to keep the property as a security and till the amount
is repaid to the depositors. He further submitted that in the said
undertaking his father Akhtar has also mentioned that said
property is free from all encumbrances and Hon’ble Court may
take the legal action in respect of the said property if, the coн
accused Shekar fails to settle all the dues within 3 months. He
further submitted that along with the said undertaking on affidavit
of applicant’s father, valuation report of the property for Rs.21.79
Crores is also given. Adv. Shetty submitted that applicant’s father
Akthar is having one half share in the said property and in the
case depositors are not settled in time the said property can be
5
auctioned or sold. He submitted that mother of applicant namely
Zara Ali Jaipuri has also made statement before the Court that she
knows the contents of affidavit. He submitted that the said
property can take care of all the depositors in the crime in the case
default is made in the repayment of the amount to the depositors.
Adv. Shetty submitted that applicant has permanent place of
residence at Mumbai. As such, he prayed for his released on bail.
5.

As against this SPP, I.O. and Adv. for intervener
vehemently opposed the application. They contended that
applicant has played a major role in commission of the said crime.
He along with his father and relative induced several poor
depositors
to
deposit
their
amount.

That
applicant
has
misappropriated the amount for his own use, enjoyment and
luxury. That 9 costly 4 wheeler vehicles, one motor cycle and other
valuables are also seized from the coнaccused. He along with coн
accused was about to abscond and hence, there is possibility of his
absconding. That there is possibility of tampering and threatening
to the witnesses, if, the applicant is released on bail.
I.O. submitted that the value of property offered by the
accused Akthar is Rs.21 Crores only, whereas, his share in the said
property is 50%. As such, the amount which will be realized out of
the said property will be around Rs.10 Crorers only, whereas, the
total number of investors duped amount is around Rs.19 Crores.
He submitted that, there is no business or property with coн
accused Shekar, as such, there is no possibility of repayment by
him to the depositors. That only for obtaining bail, false
6
undertaking is given. I.O. submitted that undertaking is also
ambiguous wherein, failure to pay the amount by coнaccused
Shekar within 3 months, property is offered by the accused Akhtar
as a security. Hence, according to I.O., the undertaking is given to
mislead, which cannot be is said to be bonafide on the part of
accused applicant. Hence, they all prayed for rejection of the
application of applicant.
6.

After hearing rival contentions, I have perused
application reply filed by the I.O. and the undertaking on affidavit
given by coнaccused Shekar (kept in BA 48/2015) and the father
of the applicant applicant accused (kept in BA 49/2015).

7.

Chargeнsheet is already filed in the present matter. Most
of the investigation is completed. Applicant is sufficiently
interrogated. During the juducial custody of applicant accused no
application was filed by the I.O. that he wants to interrogate the
applicant.
8.

No doubt that there are allegations against the
applicant of inducing depositors and cheating by personation etc.,
but there is no document to show that a single amount has came
to him. All the valuable articles except the documents were seized
from the main accused Shekar and his partner Leena. There is
nothing on record to show that any valuable was purchased by the
applicant in his name out of the amount of deposit collected by
the depositors. As such, there is nothing on record which suggests
7
that it was the applicant who used the heard earnings of the
depositors for his luxury or enjoyment.
9.

Applicant is alleged to be a commercial pilot and
instructor. It seems that neither bank account nor any property of
applicant was secured in the crime. On perusal of few statement
from the chargeнsheet it seems that except enticing and giving
false information, no role is attributed to the applicant. Though
applicant is alleged to be partner of the financial establishment,
there is nothing to show that amount came to his pocket or he
misappropriated the said amount for his own use. On the perusal
of the final report u/sec.173 of Cr.P.C. it also seems that the main
accused is Shekar who misappropriated the amount for his own
use, luxury and enjoyment and not the present applicant. As to
how applicant was benefited out of the crime proceed is not
substantiated by the I.O. either in his reply or in the arguments
advanced.
10.

Moreover, father of applicant has shown bonafide by
offering his ancestral property. Applicant has also present when
the father of applicant tendered the affidavit giving undertaking.
The applicant has not objected for the same. As such, it is clear
that the applicant has no objection if the ancestral property is
being attached in the crime. That is the sole immovable property
which can be notified u/sec.4 of the MPID Act is being offered by
the father of applicant. His mother also agrees to the contents in
the undertaking offered by the father of the applicant. Irrespective
8
of the value of the property or the share of the applicant or his
father in it, it is clear that applicant’s family on their own has
come forward to offer their property and their share in it.
11.

The residence of applicant is shown by the I.O at
Mumbai itself. The family of applicant is also residing at Mumbai.
As to how applicant will be in a position to tamper with the
prosecution evidence or witnesses is not substantiated by the
prosecution. To have a check on the applicant to avoid tampering
of witnesses or his feeling away from the justice suitable
conditions can be imposed.
12.

The offence levelled against the applicant prescribed
punishment up to 7 years. Even assuming that he fabricated
documents for the purpose of cheating, offence p/u/sec.468 of the
I.P. Code also prescribed punishment upto 7 years. No criminal
antecedent of applicant is shown by the I.O. The role attributed to
the present applicant is limited and lesser to the role played by the
main
accused
Shekar
and
his
partner
Leena.

In
above
circumstances, and having regard to the limited role played by the
applicant and looking to the bonafide of his family, I am included
to grant him liberty claimed. As such, I proceed to pass following
order.
ORDER
1.

Application is allowed.

2.

Applicant is order to be released on bail in C.R. No.

33/2015 of E.O.W. Unit III, Mumbai for the offence p/u/sec.420
9
r/w 120нB of the I.P. Code and sec.3 & 4 of the MPID Act, on his
furnishing PB of Rs.50,000/н with two sureties of the like amount
out of which one surety must be local surety with following
conditions that :
н
Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

н
Applicant shall mark his presence with I.O. on every
Tuesday between 10 am to 1 pm till further orders.
н
Applicant shall cooperate with the investigating agency.

н
Applicant shall not leave Mumbai without the prior
permission of this designated court.
н
Applicant shall not dispose off any of his immovable
properties without the permission of this court.
Date 01/08/2015.

(D.P. Surana)
Spl. Judge, MPID Act &
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai.

10