1
BEFORE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT AT
BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, AT MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION No.49 OF 2015.
IN
C.R.NO.33 OF 2015
IN
R.A.NO.21 OF 2015.
Akhtar Jaipuri,
Е
Applicant/Accused.

Е
Respondent.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through
Economic Offence Wing
Unit III, Mumbai.
Appearance :
Adv. Sadanand Shetty @ Adv. Snehal for the Applicant.
SPP Adv. Kanojia for the State.
Adv. Rathod for investor/intervener.
Coram : His Honour Judge
D.P. Surana.
Dated : 01/08/2015.
ORAL ORDER
This is an application u/sec.439 of the Cr.P.C., whereby
applicant, who was came to be arrested on 01/06/2015, is seeking
bail in C.R. No.33/2015 for the offence punishable u/sec.420,
120нB of the I.P. Code and sec.3 of the Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

2
2.

It is the case of prosecution that applicant is one of
the partner of main accused Shekar Chandrashekar. That, present
applicant, his son Adil, m/acc. Shekar, Leena Paul, Naseer Jaipuri,
hatched conspiracy and floated several schemes through their
Financial Establishment УKind Group of IndiaФ. Accused Salman
Firoz Rizvi was General Manager of the Financial Establishment.
The schemes were commercially not viable and impracticable,
arising out of promises by the accused, to pay 10% to 20% of the
amount every month and 300% to 1500 % returns to the investors
on maturity. It is alleged that accused through their financial
establishment accepted huge deposits of Rs.5,000/н to 5/н Lakhs
from small depositors in several schemes namely УWeekly New
Year BonanzaФ, УNew year BonanzaФ, УChristmas SantaclausФ,
УOnam SpecialФ, etc., and collected deposits from around 450
investors to the tune of around 19 Crores. It is further alleged
that there was no business being run by the Financial
Establishment and the amount received by them from one
depositor was to offer to other depositors. It is further alleged by
the prosecution that accused utilized the said amount for their
enjoyment, amusement and luxury. They committed fraudulent
default of the amount of depositors. It is further alleged by the
prosecution that amount so collected was by deceiving the
depositors.
It is further alleged that accused did not stop but continued
receiving amount from the depositors after maturity date on false
pretext/represented to the depositors that Income Tax raid is
conducted at the office of Financial Establishment and they
3
(depositors) will received the amount only after deposit of 10% of
the amount from their deposits. It is alleged that all most all the
amount received by the accused and his Financial Establishment
was in cash.
It is further alleged that in the raid conducted at the office
premises of the Financial Establishment, several documents, cash
of Rs.3.50 Lakhs, jeweleries, 12 mobiles, 117 watches, 25 Goggles
etc., were seized. Severally branded clothes, male female foot
wears, purses, ladies tops, goggles, iнpad, T.V. sets, DVD’s, costly
watches, perfumes, jeweleries, etc., were also seized from the
residence of the co accused Shekar and her live in partner н coн
accused Leena.
It is alleged against the applicant that he has induced
depositors to invest their amount. That applicant has given
intentional
false
information
about
main
accused
Shekar
Chandrashekar to the depositors. He has also given false
information about the scheme and the financial establishment
whereas, he was aware that there is no business at all run by the
accused or the financial establishment. That several documents
were found in the house search of the accused. That he fabricated
false documents for the purpose of cheating investors.
3.

Heard Adv. Sadanand Shetty for applicant. Also heard
SPP Adv. Kanojia for state and I.O. P.I. Khedakar for EOW Unit VII.
Also heard Adv. Rathod for victim/investors.
4.

Adv. Shetty submitted that applicant was came to be
4
arrested on 01/06/2015. He was sufficiently interrogated under
police custody remained till 08/06/2015. That investigation is
completed and chargeнsheet is filed. That no purpose will be
served in keeping the applicant behind the bars. He further
submitted that none of the offence levelled against the applicant
prescribes punishment more then 7 years and hence accused
applicant is entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted
that applicant has no criminal antecedent.
Adv. Shetty further submitted that the coнaccused Shekar
has given undertaking to repay the entire amount of the
depositors within the period of 3 months of his release. That the
applicant accused Akhtar has also given his ancestral property,
situated at Gazal Villa, A/2, Model Town CHS, above Allahbad
Bank, Gulmohar Road, JVPD Scheme, Juhu, Mumbaiн49, as a
security, which is worth Rs.50 Crores. He further submitted that
in the said undertaking on affidavit applicant accused Akhtar has
further undertaken to keep the property as a security and till the
amount is repaid to the depositors. He further submitted that in
the said undertaking applicant accused Akhtar has also mentioned
that said property is free from all encumbrances and Hon’ble
Court may take the legal action in respect of the said property if,
the coнaccused Shekar fails to settle all the dues within 3 months.
He further submitted that along with the said undertaking on
affidavit of applicant Akhtar, valuation report of the property for
Rs.21.79 Crores is also given.

Adv. Shetty submitted that
applicant Akthar is having one half share in the said property and
in the case depositors are not settled in time the said property can
5
be auctioned or sold. He submitted that wife of applicant Akhtar
namely Zara Ali Jaipuri has also made statement before the Court
that she knows the contents of affidavit. He submitted that the
said property can take care of all the depositors in the crime in the
case default is made in the repayment of the amount to the
depositors. Adv. Shetty submitted that applicant has permanent
place of residence at Mumbai. As such, he prayed for his released
on bail.
5.

As against this SPP, I.O. and Adv. for intervener
vehemently opposed the application. They contended that
applicant has played a major role in commission of the said crime.
He induced several poor depositors to deposit their amount. That
applicant has misappropriated the amount for his own use,
enjoyment and luxury. That 9 costly 4 wheeler vehicles, one motor
cycle and other valuables are also seized from the coнaccused. He
along with coнaccused was about to abscond and hence, there is
possibility of his absconding. That there is possibility of tampering
and threatening to the witnesses, if, the applicant is released on
bail.
I.O. submitted that the value of property offered by the
applicant Akthar is Rs.21 Crores only, whereas, his share in the
said property is 50%. As such, the amount which will be realized
out of the said property will be around Rs.10 Crorers only,
whereas, the total number of investors duped amount is around
Rs.19 Crores. He submitted that, there is no business or property
with coнaccused Shekar, as such, there is no possibility of
6
repayment by him to the depositors. That only for obtaining bail,
false undertaking is given. I.O. submitted that undertaking is also
ambiguous wherein, failure to pay the amount by coнaccused
Shekar within 3 months, property is offered by the applicant
Akhtar as a security. Hence, according to I.O., the undertaking is
given to mislead, which cannot be is said to be bonafides on the
part of accused applicant. Hence, they all prayed for rejection of
the application of applicant.
6.

After hearing rival contentions, I have perused
application reply Exh.2, filed by the I.O. and the undertaking on
affidavit given by coнaccused Shekar (kept in BA 48/2015) and
the present applicant accused.

7.

Chargeнsheet is already filed in the present matter. Most
of the investigation is completed. Applicant is sufficiently
interrogated. During the juducial custody of applicant accused no
application was filed by the I.O. that he wants to interrogate the
applicant.

8.

No doubt that there are allegations against the applicant
of inducing depositors and cheating by personation etc., but there
is no document to show that a single amount has came to him. All
the valuable articles except the documents were seized from the
main accused Shekar and his partner Leena. There is nothing on
record to show that any valuable was purchased by the applicant
in his name out of the amount of deposit collected by the
7
depositors. As such, there is nothing on record which suggests that
it was the applicant who used the heard earnings of the depositors
for his luxury or enjoyment. Not a single amount was seized by
the I.O. from the applicant accused.
9.

On the perusal of the final report u/sec.173 of Cr.P.C. it
seems that the main accused is Shekar and not the present
applicant. As to how applicant was benefited out of the crime
proceed is not substantiated by the I.O. either in his reply or in the
arguments advanced.
10.

Moreover, applicant has shown his bonafide by
offering his property. That is the sole immovable property which
can be notified u/sec.4 of the MPID Act. Irrespective of the value
of the property or the share of the applicant in it, it is clear that
applicant himself has come forward to offering his property and
his share in the property.
11.

The residence of applicant is shown by the I.O at
Mumbai itself. The family of applicant is also residing at Mumbai.
As to how applicant will be in a position to tamper with the
prosecution evidence or witnesses is not substantiated by the
prosecution. To have a check on the applicant to avoid tampering
of witnesses or his feeling away from the justice suitable
conditions can be imposed.
12.

The offence levelled against the applicant prescribed
punishment up to 7 years. Even assuming that he fabricated
8
documents for the purpose of cheating, offence p/u/sec.468 of the
I.P. Code also prescribed punishment upto 7 years. No criminal
antecedent of applicant is shown by the I.O. The role attributed to
the present applicant is limited and lesser to the role played by the
main
accused
Shekar
and
his
partner
Leena.

In
above
circumstances, and having regard to the limited role played by the
applicant and looking to his bonafide, I am included to grant him
liberty claimed. As such, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1.

Application is allowed.

2.

Applicant is order to be released on bail in C.R. No.

33/2015 of E.O.W. Unit III, Mumbai for the offence p/u/sec.420
r/w 120нB of the I.P. Code and sec.3 & 4 of the MPID Act, on his
furnishing PB of Rs.50,000/н with two sureties of the like amount
out of which one surety must be local surety with following
conditions that :
н
Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

н
Applicant shall mark his presence with I.O. on every
Tuesday between 10 am to 1 pm till further orders.
н
Applicant shall cooperate with the investigating agency.

н
Applicant shall not leave Mumbai without the prior
permission of this designated court.
н
Applicant shall not dispose off any of his immovable
properties without the permission of this court.
Date 01/08/2015.

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