1
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER THE M.P.I.D. ACT
AT BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSION COURT, MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2015
IN
R.A. NO. 3 OF 2015
IN
C.R.NO.36 OF 2010 (EOW)
Dayendra S/o. Late Umakant Patil.

…Applicant.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.

…Respondent.

Appearance:
Adv. Asit Singh for applicant.
Ld. SPP Adv.Kanojia for the State.
Coram : His Honour the Addl. Sessions Judge.
D.P. Surana.
Dated : 23/01/2015
ORAL ORDER
1.

By this application under section 437 r/w 439 of the Cr.P.C.

accused Dayendra S/o. Late Umakant Patil resident of Dighashi, Dist.
Thane is seeking bail in C.R. No. 36/2010 (Old C.R.No.62/2010 of Shivaji
Park Police Station) for the offences p/u/sec. 420 r/w 34 of the I.P.Code
and section 3 of the M.P.I.D. Act.
2.

It is alleged against the applicant that from July 2009 to 26th
November 2009 he alongwith wanted accused Kiran Kumar and Mahesh
Bhupati both resident of Hydrabad, established Financial Establishment
УSwastick Inovative Maltritrade Services Hydrabad”, and accepted deposits
2
on impracticable and commercially non voiable promises to double the
amount of investments within 100 days or to give 1% or 2 % interest per
day on deposit of amount for 300 days, and thereby committed fraudulent
default of amount of Rs. 85,25,000/н of poor depositors.
3.

Heard, Adv. Singh for applicant, also heard Ld. SPP and I.O.

Perused application, documents placed with the application and reply Exh.
2 filed by I.O. Though opposed by Ld. SPP it is fact that present applicant
was came tobe arrested in the alleged crime on 08/01/2015, and was
sufficiently interrogated in police custody remand till 19/01/2015. I.O. has
admitted that present applicant is not the Director of the Financial
Establishment and the 2 wanted accused are only the Directors . The Bank
account of accused/applicant is attached, his car is seized, 3 Banks account
of accused are attached. His agricultural land at Bhiwandi and one flat is
also secured in the said crime. The value of property, as alleged by the
applicant & counsel for applicant, is much more then the alleged fraudulent
default. The fact that the applicant is resident of Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane, is
not disputed by the I.O. Moreover, offences levelled against the applicant
does not prescribe punishment more than 7 years. To have check on
applicant/accused so as to avoid the possibility of tampering of the
witnesses or absconding of accused or to indulge in like activities as
prohibited
by
I.O.,
strict
conditions
can
be
imposed
on
the
applicant/accused for which, I am of the view, that applicant cannot be
continued behind the bars. Under above circumstances, I proceed to pass
following order.

3
ORDER.
1.

Application is allowed.

2.

Applicant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing PB
of Rs. 1 Lakh with one or more sureties to make up the like amount with
conditions,
a.
That applicant shall not deal with any of his
immovable properties or his bank accounts without prior
permission of this court.
b.
That applicant shall mark his presence at the office
of EOW Unit No. 3 with I.O. on alternate day for one
month from the date of his release between 10 am to 1
pm & as and when called by I.O.
c.
That applicant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing any facts to any police officer or
court.
d.
That applicant shall not leave India without the
permission of this court and shall surrender his passport,
if he is possessing, with I.O.
e.
That applicant shall coнoperate with the
investigation agency and shall not indulge in the like
activities.
f.
In the case of applicant commits breach of any
terms and conditions, I.O. /prosecution will be at liberty
to move for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
Dtd. 23/01/2015
(D.P. Surana)
Special Judge, M.P.I.D. Act. &
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
At Bombay.

4