1
BEFORE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER THE M.P.I.D. ACT AT
BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSION COURT, MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.44 OF 2015
IN
M.P.I.D. CASE NO. 15 OF 2015.
IN
C.R.NO. 6 OF 2013.
Sudhir Bhagoji Bhaud.

ЕApplicant.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.

ЕRespondent.

Appearance:
Adv. Atal B. Dubey for the applicant.
SPP Adv. Malankar for the State.
Coram : His Honour the Addl. Sessions Judge.
D. P. Surana.
Dated : 16/06/2015.
ORAL ORDER.
This is an application under section 439 r/w 437 of the
Cr.P.C. whereby accused/applicant is seeking the bail for the offence
p/u/sec.420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 204 r/w 34 of the I.P.Code
r/w sec. 3 of the M.P.I.D. Act in C.R.No.6 of 2013, under investigation
with EOW Unit No.III.
2.

It is the case of prosecution that applicant was employee
2
in the financial establishment, wherein Dinesh Jaitapkar and his
family member were the Directors. It is alleged that in all 2187
investors were duped of their hard earning of Rs. 50 to 60 Crores. It
is further alleged that as on today around 947 investors have come
forward
with
complaint
of
fraudulent
default
of
their
deposits/investments with the accused.
3.

It is alleged that the modus operandi of the accused and
the financial establishment was that, on deposit of 2.25 Lakhs in their
companies the Director Dinesh Jaitapkar and his brother Mahesh
Jaitapkar will purchase vehicles in the name of company & such
vehicles will be given on rent. That out of the earnings from the
vehicles around of Rs.10,500/н will be paid on each vehicle, each
month to the depositors. That the financial establishment will also
pay the salary of Driver and will incur expenses on the maintenance
of vehicle.
4.

It is alleged against the applicant that he enticed and
induced several investors to deposit their amount. That applicant
purchased vehicle in the name of his 2 Proprietary concern “M/s.
Rent A Car Enterprises” and “M/s. Rent A Car Contractor”. It is
further alleged against the applicant that he was involved in
fabricating the false documents of the vehicles to induce the investors
and thereby inducing them. It is further alleged against the applicant
that the applicant was one of the conspirator in perpetrating the
crime and is equally liable as Director. Though an employee of the
financial establishment but was indulged in day to day affairs of the
3
financial establishment.
5.

Heard Adv. Dube for applicant and Ld. SPP for the State.

Perused application, reply Exh.2 filed by prosecution and chargesheet
papers in MPID Case No. 15 of 2015 arising out of C.R.No.6/2013.
Adv. Dube submitted that chargesheet is filed in the
crime. Accused are already released on bail. Main accused Dinesh
Jaitapkar was also released on bail but he committed breach of the
bail condition and sold some of the properties secured in the crime to
defraud the investors, as such, his bail application was cancelled and
he was taken into custody. He further submitted that the allegations
against the applicant is issuing of blank cheques whereas, applicant is
only an employee of the financial establishment and not the Director.
He further submitted that the alleged offence is in respect of the
documents which are already seized in the crime. As per Adv. Dube,
though applicant was alleged to be absconding there is no averment
of applicant fleeing away from justice. As such he prayed for release
of applicant on bail on any terms and conditions.
6.

As against this Ld. SPP submitted that applicant was
absconding and hence, he was shown wanted accused in the
chargesheet. Investigation was hampered due to abscondance of the
applicant. Investigation as regards applicant is still pending and there
is every possibility of applicant committing breach of the bail
condition and fleeing away from the justice. He submitted that
applicant is directly involved in the commission of the said crime.
There is prima facie case of documents being forged by the applicant.

4
Hence the possibility of tampering by the applicant cannot be ruled
out. Hence, the SPP prayed for rejection of the bail application.
7.

It is an admitted fact that chargesheet in C.R.No.6/2015
is filed on 20/03/2015 itself. Applicant is shown as wanted accused
in the said chargesheet. He was alleged to be absconded whereas, I
do not find a single averment by the investigating officer that there is
possibility of absconding by the applicant. On perusal of the final
report /chargesheet it seems that most of the investigation in the
crime is completed. The alleged forged documents are also seized.
Main accused Dinesh Jaitapkar was already order to be released on
bail though is in custody for fault on his part in committing breach
of terms and conditions of bail order.
It also seems from the final report & reply Exh.2 filed by
the I.O. that no property in the name of applicant was secured in the
crime. Other several properties in the name of accused
Dinesh
Jaitapkar, his wife and relative Yojana are secured in the crime. The
value of properties are yet to be ascertained. Other 28 Banks
accounts are also freezed in the said crime with the amount of Rs.
27,386.93. Applicant/accused is behind the bars since 28/05/2015.
As per the I.O. the freezed bank accounts are not in the name of
applicant. As such it is highly doubted as to whether applicant
received any direct benefits from the amount so deposited by the
investors. On perusal of the final report it is clear that applicant was
the employee of the financial establishment. The proprietary concern
in the name of applicant might be used by the main coнaccused
5
Dinesh Jaitapkar for perpetrating the crime, using applicant as a tool
being his employee.
8.

Irrespective of the above facts it is apparent that it will
take its own time for the I.O. to file supplementary chargesheet
regarding further investigation done after the arrest of present
applicant. So also it will take its own time to commence the trial
thereafter. Till then applicant an employee of the financial
establishment cannot be kept behind the bars. Hence, I am of the
view that with strict conditions applicant can be order to be released
on bail. As such, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1.
Application is allowed.
2.
Applicant is ordered to be released on executing PB of
Rs.50,000/н with one or more sureties to make up the like amount
with condition that
нapplicant shall mark his presence with I.O. on every
Monday between 10 am to 1 pm till supplementary chargesheet in
respect of further investigation is filed and as and when called by the
I.O.
нapplicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses or evidence in any manner.
нapplicant shall cooperate with the investigating agency.
нapplicant shall not leave Mumbai without one week preн
intimation to the I.O.
нapplicant shall not disposed off his any immovable
property without one month preнintimation to the I.O.
Dt. 16/06/2015.

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

6