The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, in its order dated April 3, 2024, granted regular bail to Prathamesh Kudchadkar in a significant case of alleged economic fraud. The decision, officially Criminal Bail Application No. 478 of 2024, highlights the judicial balancing act between the gravity of economic crimes and the accused’s right to liberty once the investigation is complete and security measures are in place. The order, delivered by Addl. Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire, demonstrates that even in cases involving substantial misappropriation, the principle of not detaining an accused indefinitely post-charge-sheet holds considerable weight.
The Allegations and Legal Challenge
The applicant, Prathamesh Kudchadkar, faced charges under Sections 406 (Criminal breach of trust) and (Cheating) read with Section 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Vikhroli Police Station vide C.R. No. 367/2023. The allegations, raised by informant Savita Damesa, stated that the applicant and his wife, Poonam Kudchadkar (Co-accused), approached the informant and lured her and her sister, Sushila Sebastian, into investing in the share market with a promise of a 10% monthly profit and the return of the principal amount after months. Relying on this promise and a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding, the victims collectively deposited (₹20 Lakhs) into the wife’s bank account. The prosecution and intervenor alleged that the couple only invested Lakhs, misappropriating the remaining Lakhs for personal use, thus declining to pay the promised profit or return the principal amount.
The applicant, through Ld. Advocate Amit Jha, vehemently denied the allegations, arguing for false implication. The key defence points were: the charge-sheet had been submitted on January 18, 2024, removing the need for custodial interrogation; there were no criminal antecedents against him; and the alleged investment amount was already “secured” as the investigating machinery had frozen his and his wife’s bank accounts.
Prosecution’s Strong Opposition
The prosecution, represented by Ld. S.P.P. S.V. Kekanis and Manisha J. Parmar, and the intervenor (representing the victim), Ld. Advocate Aniket Yadav, strongly opposed the bail plea. They stressed the seriousness of the economic crime, pointing out that the applicant and his wife allegedly targeted a 79-year-old lady with a “dishonest intention” to cheat her out of her hard-earned money. They argued that the misappropriation of half the amount (₹10 Lakhs) for personal use, coupled with the abscondence of the co-accused wife, Poonam Kudchadkar, indicated a clear dishonest intent from the root. They further noted that the Ld. Trial Court had previously rejected the applicant’s bail pleas both before and after the charge-sheet submission.
Judicial Rationale for Granting Bail
After considering the serious allegations and the strong opposition, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach focused on the current stage of the judicial process. The key findings and conclusions leading to the bail grant were:
- Investigation Status: The Court recognized that the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was submitted on January 18, 2024. This factor significantly reduced the possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence.
- Secured Amount: A critical factor was the Court’s observation that the alleged investment amount was, in part, “secured” as the Investigating Machinery had frozen the bank accounts of the applicant and his wife. This move provided a form of security for the victims’ money, lessening the immediate harm posed by the applicant’s release.
- Indefinite Detention: Despite the seriousness of the economic crime and the abscondence of the co-accused wife (which the Investigating Machinery had failed to address), the Court stated that there was “no seriously considerable cognizable reason cause ground for further detention of applicant for indefinite period.” This reaffirmed the principle that pre-trial detention, especially post-charge-sheet, must be for a clear and cogent reason related to the trial’s fairness, which the prosecution could no longer substantially prove.
Conditions Imposed
While granting the bail, the Court recognized the seriousness of the allegations and opted to impose stern conditions to mitigate the risk of the applicant misusing his liberty. The Court allowed the application, ordering Prathamesh Kudchadkar to be released on a Personal Recognizance Bond (P.R. Bond) of (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) along with one or two solvent sureties of the like amount.
The mandatory conditions included directives to not tamper or hamper the prosecution witnesses and evidence, attend every date of trial, not indulge in any criminal activity, and not leave India without prior permission. This substantial bond amount, coupled with strict conditions, reflects the Court’s effort to safeguard the process while adhering to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.