1
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER THE M.P.I.D. ACT
AT BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSION COURT, MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2015.
IN
MPID CASE NO. 16 OF 2014
IN
C.R.NO.42 OF 2010 OF EOW UNIT NO.III, CB CID, Mumbai.
Suresh Zond.

…Applicant.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.

…Respondent.

Appearance:
Adv. Soni Sangle 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 439 r/w 437 of the Cr.P.C.,
accused /applicant, who was came to be arrested on 20/12/2014, in
pursuance to execution of non bailable warrant issued by this designated
court, is seeking bail for the offences p/u/sec. 420, 406 r/w 34 of the IPC
and Section 3 of the MPID Act in MPID Case No.16 of 2014, arising out of
C.R.No.42/2010 of EOW Unit No.III.
It is alleged against the applicant that he floated Financial
Scheme through his Financial Establishment through Internet vide
2
“www.newecash.com/
www.cashdollar.com,
www.cashdollar.biz”
and
thereby inducing poor investors by giving false promises of unprecedented
High attractive interest at the rate of 25% per annum, dupted an amount of
Rs. 55,96,325/нof all the investors.
2.

Heard, Adv. Soni Sangle for applicant & Ld. SPP for State.

Perused application reply Exh.2 filed by I.O. and chargesheet papers.
3.

Though SPP opposed the application, it is a fact that
chargesheet is already filed in the said crime. Accused/applicant is also
sufficiently interrogated. I.O. made statement that he do not want to file
supplementary chargesheet against the applicant/accused and the same
chargesheet papers be treated as the chargesheet against the present
applicant/accused. As such, investigation as regards present applicant is
completed. The only contention raised by investigating officer is that since
filing of chargesheet accused was absconding, he used to change his
addresses and hence, there is possibility of absconding of accused once
again. Whereas, it seems that accused was arrested from Belgum itself, the
address which is shown by the applicant in his application. During the
interrogation of the present applicant nothing was seized from him. Charge
in MPID Case No. 16/2014 is not yet framed. Hence, during the inquiry or
trial
the
case
will
be
not
hampered
due
to
the
absence
of
applicant/accused. Moreover, all the offences leveled against the
applicant/accused does not prescribed punishment for more than 7 years.
Coнaccused are already granted bail. As such, no purpose would be served
in keeping the applicant behind the bars. To have check on applicant/
3
accused so as to avoid the possibility of absconding or flee away from
justice, strict conditions can be imposed on the applicant. In the result I
proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1
Application is allowed.

2
Applicant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing PB
of Rs.2 Lakhs 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 Saturday between 10 am to 1 pm & as and
when called by I.O. till framing of chargesheet against him.
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 passports, if he is possessing, with I.O.
e.

That applicant shall coнoperate with the investigation agency.

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