1
BEFORE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT AT
BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, AT MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION No.42 OF 2015.
IN
MPID SPL. CASE NO. 15 OF 2015
IN
C.R.NO.6/2013 OF EOW UNIT 3 CB CID, MUMBAI.
Dinesh Shantaram Jaitapkar.

…Applicant.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
at the instance of EOW Unit 3, CB CID
Mumbai in C.R. No.06/2013.

…Respondent.

Appearance:
Adv.Manerkar for Applicant.
Ld. SPP Adv. Kanojia for the State.
Adv. Badadare for intervenor
Coram : HHJ D.P. Surana,
Special Judge, M.P.I.D. Act. (C.R. No.36)
Dated : 12/08/2015.
ORAL ORDER
1.

This is an application under section 439 of the Cr.P.c. for
grant of bail in C.R.No.6/2013 of EOW Unit No.3 for the offence
punishable under section 420 r/w 34, 120(B) of the I.P.Code and
Section 3 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In
Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

2
2.

It is the case of prosecution that accused/applicant was
running financial establishment “Sindhant Travels”. He floated
several schemes and induced several depositors to deposit their
amount in his financial establishment. By way of said scheme it was
assured to the depositors that they will get vehicle in their name, the
installment of financer will be paid by the financial establishment,
monthly amount of Rs. 10,500/н will be paid to the depositors,
vehicle will be given on rent by the financial establishment and the
maintenance and driver wages will be paid by the financial
establishment. It is alleged that accused duped an amount of Rs.
50н60 Crores of 2187 investors, out of which 972 investors
approached to the investigating agency. Several properties purchased
in the name of accused/applicant, his wife or relatives out of the
amount of investors were seized in the said crime.
3.

Applicant was arrested in the said crime on 04/01/2013
by Jogeshwari Police. He was ordered to be released on bail in BA
NO. 35/BA/2013 by Addl. C.M.M.47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai.
The said order is dtd. 28/02/2013. In the said bail order one of the
condition imposed on the applicant is as follows :н
“(vi) The applicant/accused is further directed not
to alienate or dispose of the property seized by the
I.O. till further order.”
4.

After release accused disposed off several properties
attached in the crime and therefore, committed breach of terms and
3
conditions of the bail orders. By order dtd. 22/08/2014 A.C.M.M.
47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in MA No. 405/Misc./2014
cancelled the bail so granted in favour of the applicant. At the
relevant time accused was in custody in another offence, hence, was
also taken in custody in the present matter. Thereafter, section 3 of
the M.P.I.D. Act, was added against applicant/accused and the matter
was sent up to this Designated Court.
5.

Applicant again moved application for bail before this
designated Court by order dtd. 29/10/2014 in BA NO. 2157/2014
the said application was came to be rejected, holding that application
has committed breach of terms and conditions of the bail order.
6.

Thereafter, the present application is again moved by the
same accused/applicant for grant of bail.
7.

Heard, Adv. Manerkar for accused /applicant, Adv.

Badadare for the intervener, SPP Adv. Kanojia for the State and I.O.
P.I. Kulkarni from the office of EOW.
8.

Adv. Manerkar submitted that accused/applicant is in
custody since long. That the breach of condition was not
intentionally on the part of applicant. That applicant has shown his
bonafide in disclosing his properties which were not within the
knowledge of investigating agency. That applicant will not hence
4
forthwith deal with any movable or immovable properties without
the permission of this court. Adv. Manerkar further submitted that
applicant has filed affidavit cum declaration whereby he has
undertaken to deposit an amount of Rs. 14,80,000/н, received by
him towards the sale consideration of the alleged property sold by
him, within the period of 9 months, whereby he will deposit Rs. 5
Lakhs within first 3 months and remaining balance of Rs. 9,80,000/н
within next 6 months. He submitted that applicant has sufficiently
undergone for his act of breach of condition from more than 1 year is
behind the bars. Hence, he prayed for release of accused/applicant
on bail.
9.

As against this SPP, Adv. Badadare and
I.O. for
intervener in one voice vehemently oppose the bail application. SPP
and I.O. submitted that applicant has sold out the seized property in
the crime and hence he may not be granted bail. They further
submitted that there is no change in the circumstances to reconsider
the present application filed by accused, when his previous bail
application on the same ground was came to be rejected. Adv.
Badadare submitted that if, applicant is released on bail he will again
proceed to sale his properties and poor investors will be deprieved of
their basic rights. He submitted that applicant is a habitual offender
having no regard to the judicial. Hence, he may not be granted bail.
He further submitted that applicant has not given all the details of
his properties. There are certain other properties and vehicles in the
5
name of applicant which he has not disclosed and has suppressed
from the investigating agency & the Court. Hence, he submitted that,
there is no bonafide on the part of applicant. As such, he too prayed
for rejection of the application.
10.

After hearing the rival contentions, I have perused the
application the previous orders of this court and the court of
A.C.M.M. granting, canceling and rejecting the bail application of the
applicant. I have also perused the affidavit in reply filed by
intervener (alleged investors) and affidavit cum declaration given by
the accused.
11.

It is not disputed that applicant has committed breach of
the above bail condition. It is also not disputed that the applicant’s
bail was cancelled and then his bail application was rejected on the
same ground. On the face of record it seems that applicant has
received an amount of Rs.14,80,000/н towards the consideration
from the sale of immovable properties attached in the crime.
Applicant has given proposal to deposit the said amount in 9 months.
Bonafide on the part of applicant, in my view is change in
circumstances to reconsider the present application.
12.

Admittedly applicant is behind the bars since long. On
facts and merits his bail application was allowed. He was taken into
custody in the said crime after cancellation his bail application only
6
because of breach of above bail conditions. Applicant in his affidavit
cum declaration has undertaken to deposit the said amount Rs.
14,80,000/н within 9 months. He has shown willingness to deposit
an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs within 3 months of his release. Applicant
has also given the details of his properties which are not secured in
the said crime. Applicant has also undertaking that henceforth he
will not dispose off any of his immovable properties or movable
property (including vehicle) without the permission of this Court.
Giving details of the property to be attached in the said crime which
were not within the knowledge of investigating agency is itself
shows an act of regard against the judicial system. When applicant
has shown his bonafide as aforesaid, in my view, he has sufficiently
in custody for the alleged breach of the bail condition. From the
affidavit cum declaration given by the applicant/accused it seems
that he has learned a lesson. From his illegal act. Applicant, when
was granted bail on merits and is in custody only because of the
alleged breach of condition, in my view, after his bonafide cannot be
kept under incarceration, specially when he is ready to deposit the
entire amount received by him out of the sale consideration of the
attached
properties
within
a
stipulated
time.

The
undertaking/declaration given by the applicant is accepted. An
opportunity is also required to the offer to the applicant to deposit
the amount which will be, in my view in the interest of investors/
depositors. As such, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. As
such, I proceed to pass following order.

7
ORDER
Application is allowed on the same terms and conditions
on which he was ordered to be released on bail by the Ld. A.C.M.M.
by order dtd. 28/02/2013 with more conditions that applicant shall
abide the undertaking /declaration given by him, failing which his
application for bail will stands cancelled. That he shall not in any
manner disposed off any movable or immovable properties in any
manner without the orders of this designated court, irrespective of
the fact whether those properties are attached or not attached,
secured or not secured in the said crime.
Date 12/08/2015.

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