:1:
Order on BA No.966/24
MHCC020060882024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.966 OF 2024
IN
Criminal Case No.276/PW/2024
IN
C.R. No.66 of 2023
Manish Rameshchandra Shah
]
Age : 60 years, Occ : Business
]
Residing at 74/Maitri Heights, Bhaudaji Road,
]
Matunga (E), Mumbai-400 019.
]
(At present applicant / accused is in Authur Road ] Applicant/
Central Prison, Mumbai.)
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through EOW, Zone-6, Gen. Cheating-4, Mumbai)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Prasad Borkar for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 30th April, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused
Manish Rameshchandra Shah resident of Matunga (E), Mumbai,
under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
grant of regular bail.

:2:
2.

Order on BA No.966/24
A case being C.R. No.66 of 2023 is registered with EOW, Unit6, General Cheating -4, Mumbai (C.R. No.911 of 2023 registered
with Kasturba Police Station) against the present Applicant for
the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred as “IPC”).

3.

Application is resisted by the Prosecution by filing its say at
Exhibit No.02.

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
Conversation dated 11.11.2019 and 16.12.2019 recorded on
the mobile of customer of the informant’s Company J. M.
Financial Services Ltd. (hereinafter referred as “JMFSL”) and the
recording of the phone calls received by JMFSL Company on
08.12.2020 heard by informant seems that it was the voice of one
and the same person. The said person received phone call by
Jamshed Vakharia on 06.04.2023, who gave his number as
9324460238 and told his name as Vinay Vakharia. He has
obtained information of the unclaimed shares of the customers of
JMFSL. He has prepared forged Pan Card, Aadhar Card of the
said customers thereby, opened fictitious bank accounts through
which again he has opened fabricated D-mat account – Trading
account in the name of customers of JMFSL Company with
intention to cheat and secured unlawful gain, transferred total
amount of Rs.6,88,20,932/- to different bank accounts and
thereby caused unlawful loss to the informant’s Company and its
customers. Thereby, report came to be lodged on 27.11.2023.

:3:
5.

Order on BA No.966/24
Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant, Ld. SPP for the
Prosecution, Investigating Officer.

6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that, applicant has
no concern with the alleged offence. He has been falsely
implicated in this case. Prior to filing of charge-sheet, he has filed
application for bail which was rejected by the Ld. Magistrate on
29.02.2024. Second bail application filed after charge-sheet was
also rejected on 05.04.2024. Investigation is now complete.
Statement recorded of the witnesses reflects that applicant has no
role to play in the alleged crime. He is not a beneficiary to the
transactions. There is nothing incriminating material found
against applicant. There is no co-relation between alleged
documents transmitted by the applicant to accused no.1 and
opening of bogus bank accounts in the name of Jamshed
Vakharia. There is absolutely no evidence to show active role
played by the applicant. Entire case of the prosecution based
upon the statement of co-accused which cannot be taken into
consideration to languish applicant behind bar. The case is based
on documentary evidence. Thereby, physical custody of the
applicant will not be required. Case of the prosecution is based on
selected extract of whatsapp messages. The applicant is in the
business of share trading facilitation and is the member of BSE /
NSE and thus, availability of such information is not out of place.
These relevant messages have been circulated in traders. It is just
a forward message. Applicant is behind bar since long. No
purpose would be served by keeping him behind bar. On these
amongst ground, Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that
the applicant be released on bail.

:4:
7.

Order on BA No.966/24
Per contra, Ld. SPP objected the bail application. It is
contended that, mobile data extraction secured from the mobile
of accused no.1 were submitted to cyber expert. Whatsapp chat
between accused no.1 and the applicant is discovered from the
said data. Applicant has sent share certificate copy of Nayan
Acharya through whatsapp and also sent detailed information of
the various Companies of the Nayan Acharya to the accused no.1
along with the information related to shares / d-mat of some
persons. Thus, there is evidence that, applicant and accused no.1
exchanged information related to offence committed by them and
that both of them were continuously in contact with each other.
Other accused in this case were arrested and it is revealed that
the applicant was in contact with them. They have forged and
fabricated various documents of near about 26 persons holding
shares and d-mat accounts in their names. Till now, it is revealed
that there is misappropriation of near about Rs.14,11,66,524/-. It
is further pointed out that other offence vide C.R. No.155 of 2022
of same nature is registered against the applicant with EOW,
Mumbai. Thus, applicant is habitual offender. Considering modus
operandi adopted by the accused to commit offence, it is obvious
that there must be a racket. Investigation of the offence is quite
complicated. If the applicant would be released on bail there is
every possibility that, he may pressurize witnesses and tamper
with the prosecution evidence. Hence, it is submitted that the
application filed by the applicant for grant of bail be rejected.
8.

On perusal of record it reveals that involvement of the
applicant
with
the
alleged
offence
is
revealed
during
investigation. There is documentary evidence to show the
:5:
Order on BA No.966/24
exchange of relevant documents in between applicant and the
main accused no.1. Thereby, prima facie it is revealed that, the
applicant facilitated the commission of offence. Consistent
contact in between applicant and other accused reflects the
possibility of hatching conspiracy for the commission of an
offence amongst them. It is not mere forwarding message without
intention and involvement in commission of offence.
9.

Documents extracted through forensic report reflects active
participation
of
applicant
for
giving
information
of
the
shareholders – d-mat accounts to the other accused. Opening of
bogus bank accounts, siphoning of amount from the bogus
accounts and further activities related to commission of offence
are interlinked with each other. There is no reason prima facie
shown for the false implication of applicant. On the contrary,
active role played by the applicant in the commission of offence is
revealed. It is not necessary that, certain amount would directly
go to his account to show him as a beneficiary. That would be the
part of further investigation. Modus operandi to commit offence
indicates a shrewd conspiracy. Applicant seems to be one of the
brain behind such conspiracy and certainly can be linked as a
prime accused. Investigating Officer has pointed out that,
investigation in the matter is quite complicated one. Accused
have offices at Calcutta and Mumbai. Till now, 26 fake accounts
were revealed, out of it only 4-5 accounts are verified. Other
investigation is pending. There are victims at Delhi, Hariyana,
Calcutta etc. and the scope of offence is very wide.
10.

Thus, Prima facie concern of the applicant with the alleged
:6:
Order on BA No.966/24
huge financial scam / offence is established. Nature of offence is
quite serious. Interest of large number of people is involved. It is
well settled legal preposition that, “the economic offences having
deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offence
affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby
posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”
Therefore, considering the nature of offence and investigation
thereof, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled
for the relief claimed. If the applicant would released on bail,
there is every possibility that he may tamper with the prosecution
evidence or flee away from justice. The application filed by the
applicant being devoid of merits, does not deserve countenance.
Hence, the order :
ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.966 of 2024 filed by the
Applicant Manish Rameshchandra Shah in connection with C.R.
No.66 of 2023 is registered with EOW, Unit-6, General Cheating 4, Mumbai (C.R. No.911 of 2023 registered with Kasturba Police
Station) against the present Applicant for the offence punishable
under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby rejected.

2. The present Bail Application No.966 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)

Digitally signed by
ADITEE UDAY
KADAM
Date: 2024.04.30
16:16:42 +0530
Date: 30/04/2024
Mumbai
(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
Dictated directly on computer: 30/04/2024
Signed by HHJ on
: 30/04/2024
:7:
Order on BA No.966/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
30.04.2024 at 4.11 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Ms. R. D. Tari
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. A. U. Kadam
C.R. No.07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
30.04.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
30.04.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
30.04.2024