1
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
AT BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSION COURT, MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION No.39 OF 2015.

IN MPID SPL. CASE NO. 16 OF 2015.
Amardeepsingh Basant Singh Thakur.

….Applicant.

V/s.
The State of Maharshtra.
Through EOW, Mumbai, C.R.No.40/13.

….Respondent.

Appearance:
Adv. M.M. Patnekar & Neelam Kanuajia for Applicant.
Ld. SPP Adv. Kanojia for the State.
Coram : HHJ D.P. Surana,
Special Judge, M.P.I.D. Act. (C.R. No.36)
Dated : 13/05/2015.
ORAL ORDER
1.

Accused who was came to be arrested on 07/02/2015 in
C.R.No.40/2013 under investigation with EOW Unit 7, for the offence
p/u/sec. 406, 420, 120(B) r/w sec.34 of the I.P.Code and section 3 of
the M.P.I.D.Act, is seeking bail under section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
2.

Informant Naresh Vishwas Patil, in his information to
police under section 154 of the Cr.P.C. alleged that he and his family
members invested Rs. 28,60,000/н with Wetell Cap Solutions Pvt Ltd.
That he was made to investment in the company on being induced by
Vasant Kadam by explaining several commercial not viable schemes. It
is further alleged that the financial establishment committed
fraudulent default of his invested amount and benefits thereon.

2
During investigation it revealed that there are around 36
investors and their total amount of fraudulent default is Rs.
2,37,40,000/н. The applicant is alleged to be Directors of all the 5
Wetell Group of companies & main accused behind the crime.
3.

Heard Adv. Patnekar for applicant & Ld. SPP for the
State. Perused application, reply Exh.2 filed by I.O. and police case
papers. Adv. Patnekar submitted that applicant was came to be
arrested on 07/02/2015 & since then he is in custody. He is
sufficiently interrogated & chargesheet is filed. In Chargesheet the
address of applicant is same as mentioned in the application. One coн
accused employee of the financial establishment was already granted
bail. One coнaccused is bedridden. That two properties at Panvel and
Dombivali are already seized in the crime. He further submitted that
no purpose will be served in keeping the applicant behind the bars.
4.

As against this the Ld. SPP submitted that, though
chargesheet is filed on 07/04/2015 present applicant is the main
accused. The amount of fraud is more than 2 Crores. There are several
cases registered against the applicant. Applicant was the authorized
signatory of the financial establishment. In total 16 banks accounts
frozen in the crime, only Rs.32,000 were found. Several witnesses
have specifically mentioned the role of present applicant that he
conducted meetings, himself expanding schemes and also taken some
of the investors to Hyderabad and thereby induced them to deposit
their amount with the financial establishment.

3
SPP further submitted that several amount is found
transferred in FDR in Axis Bank, Banjara HIlls, Hyderabad and also
transferred to the wife of applicant. That the siphoned amount is
under investigation. Fund flow of the bank account is yet to be
charted out. She further submitted that I.O. apprehends that certain
properties might have purchased by the applicant in his wife’s name
and no property in the present applicant’s name was found or could
be secured in the crime.
5.

It is admitted fact on record that applicant was
transferred and thereby shown arrested in the crime on 07/02/2015.
Since then he is in custody. He is sufficiently interrogated .
Chargesheet is already filed. As regards further investigation is
concern, after the J.C. of applicant, no application is filed by the I.O.
to interrogate him in prison. The residential address of applicant is not
disputed to be at Hyderabad. Most of the investigation seems to have
been done. Applicant is aged about 50 years. Only because I.O. wants
to conduct further investigation, applicant cannot be kept under
incarceration. When I.O. has not substantiated any ground for the
further investigation which could be done only when applicant can be
kept behind the bars. All the offences levelled against the applicant,
prescribed punishment up to 7 years only .Two properties of Panvel
and Dombivali are already secured in the crime. 16 Bank accounts are
already frozen. One coнaccused of the applicant employee of the
financial establishment is granted anticipatory bail. It is not alleged by
the investigating Officer said released coнaccused is not coнoperating
with the investigation. One coнaccused is reported to be bedridden
because of which could not be arrested. Under above circumstances, I
4
do not find any ground for denying the applicant the liberty claimed.
Whereas, this is a fit case wherein applicant can be granted bail on
conditions. So that I.O. shall also get an opportunity to interrogate the
applicant during his further investigation. 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.

40/2013 of E.O.W. Unit 7, Mumbai for the offence p/u/sec.406, 420
r/w 120нb
of the I.P.Code and sec.3 of the MPID Act, on his
furnishing PB of Rs.5,00,000/н with one or more sureties to make up
the like amount with conditions that:
нApplicant shall mark his presence on first Monday of
each month till further orders.
нApplicant shall cooperate with further investigation.
нApplicant shall not leave India without the prior
permission of this designated court and shall surrender his passport
with the I.O. if he possess.
нApplicant shall not dispose off any of his immovable
properties without the permission of this court and the immovably
properties in the name of his wife without one month prior intimation
to the I.O.
нApplicant shall not withdraw any FDR in his name or in
the name of his wife without one month pre intimation to the I.O.
Dtd. 13/05/2015.

(D.P. Surana)
Special Judge, M.P.I.D. Act. &
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
At Bombay.

5