1
MCOC BA 46/2022
MHCC020010572022
Received on : 28/01/2022
Registered on : 28/01/2022
Decided on : 08/02/2022
Duration
: MM DD YY
00 11 00
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT GREATER BOMBAY
MCOC BAIL APPLICATION NO.46 OF 2022
Ananth Premnath Shetty
Age : 49 years, Occ. : Business,
R/a : Flat no.106, Divyanshree Apartment,
Bejalkapikad, Bejal City,
Manglore, Karnataka.

..Applicant
V/s
State of Maharashtra
(through the officer inнcharge of
DCB CID, vide CR no.122/2020)
..Respondent
Coram : P. R. SITRE
The Special Judge (C.R.No.26)
Dated : 08th February, 2022
Adv. Mr. Gaurav Parkar for the applicant.
SPP Mr. Sunil Gonsalves for the State.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
1.

This is an application under section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail in CR no.122/2020
2
MCOC BA 46/2022
registered by DCB CID for the offences punishable under sections 387,
120 (B) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 (1) (ii), 3
(2) and 3 (4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act.
2.

According to the prosecution the complaint was lodged by
Kailash Agarwal on 27th August 2020 contending that he is in the
business of construction and is having his firm by name ‘Nish
Developers’. He also has another business by name ‘Nishant Import
Export’ at Dubai.

He has an office relating to this business in
Switzerland also. Due to his work, he more often resides in Dubai.
3.

The complainant further contended that in January 2018,
through a common acquaintance Akash Mehta, he was introduced to
one Rupin Banker and his family. Rupin Banker was given financial
help by the complainant and initially there were smooth financial
transactions between them.

After some time, Rupin and his wife
Meenakshi, by using forged stamps and forged signatures, withdrew
about Rs.35 crores from the account of the complainant maintained
with the bank of Bank of Baroda, Bur Dubai Branch. In that connection
the complainant has lodged police complaint against Hemant Banker,
Rupin and Meenakshi in Dubai. Rupin and Menakshi left Dubai and
fled away to London. They are residing at London and Hemant Banker,
father of Rupin Banker is residing in Dubai. The complainant further
contended that Rupin Banker stopped receiving complainant’s phone
calls.
4.

The complainant had gone to Mauritius on 15/07/2019 in
connection with his business. On 16/07/2019 at about 05.30 p.m., he
received a phone call from one Vijay. The complainant was busy in
3
MCOC BA 46/2022
meeting and therefore asked the caller to call back after some time.
Again after one hour, the same caller called the complainant and told
him that he was Vijay Shetty and that he had committed six murders.
He threatened the complainant that the complainant should not insist
on police investigation against Rupin Banker otherwise complainant
would be killed when he returned to Mumbai.
5.

The complainant returned to Dubai on 20/07/2019. On
22/07/2019 again same caller called and threatened him that if he asks
money from the Banker family, then he would be killed.

The
complainant realised that caller was in contact with Hemant and Rupin
Banker and at their behest the complainant was threatened by Vijay
Shetty. The same thing was repeated after two days. The complainant
tried to contact Hemant Banker who was residing in Dubai but he did
not accept his phone call.
6.

On 27/07/2019, the complainant returned to India out of
fear caused by these threats. On 08/08/2019, Hemant Banker called
complainant and told him that repayment of his dues would be delayed.
That time, complainant questioned him about the threatening calls
made by Vijay Shetty. At that time, Hemant Banker denied about it.
7.

On 10/08/2019, Vijay Shetty again called the complainant
and threatened him that the complainant should not demand
repayment from Rupin Banker and that Rupin should be given period of
6 months for that.

On 22/08/2019, again Vijay Shetty made
threatening call to the complainant. The complainant had saved two
clips of the recording of the phone call from Vijay Shetty and also one
clip from Hemant Banker’s conversation. Accordingly, FIR was lodged.

4
8.

MCOC BA 46/2022
The learned advocate on behalf of the applicant/accused
submitted that the applicant has a good reputation in the society. He
further submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and no
role was attributed towards the applicant during the lodging of the FIR.
The applicant is suffering from various heart related ailments.

The
applicant was arrested on 18/08/2021 and was remanded to police
custody. Presently he is in judicial custody. The applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and that he has not committed any
offence as alleged in the complaint. Perusal of the entire material of the
investigation does not pinpoint that prima facie the applicant is
involved in the offence of MCOC Act. There is no concrete evidence to
prima facie show that the applicant is a member of the syndicate
allegedly run by accused no.1. The applicant is not involved in the
syndicate of accused no.1 and neither has the applicant committed any
grievous/serious offence in the past. The applicant has been in custody
for a period of 161 days and has thoroughly coнoperated with the
investigation.
9.

The learned advocate further submitted that the applicant
is a heart patient and is suffering from multiple heart releated ailments.
The applicant has been advised to undergo a Coronary Artery Bypass
Graft (CABG) surgery as the applicant has got 80% blockage in his left
and right heart arteries.

The health condition of the applicant is
extremely serious and the applicant requires to undergo the CABG
surgery at the earliest. The applicant was arrested on 18/08/2021 and
since then he is in jail. Already sufficient time is passed since he is in
jail. Applicant is ready to abide with each and every condition imposed
by this Hon’ble Court. Considering the above said facts and
5
MCOC BA 46/2022
circumstances, the learned advocate for the applicant prayed to release
him on bail.
10.

The learned advocate for the applicant relied upon the
following authority :н
(i) Krushna Guruswami Naidu V/s The State of Maharashtra decided
by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on 25 th March, 2009 in Criminal
Application no.1397 of 2009
11.

On the other hand, the learned SPP for the State, by filing
the say of IO at Exh.4, strongly opposed the application on the ground
that the applicant is directly involved in this offence.

During
interrogation with the accused Hemant Banker, he revealed the name of
the present applicant.

Accused Hemant Banker admitted to have
contacted the applicant Anant Shetty in order to take help from him.
The applicant has not coнoperated in the investigation. On the analysis
of the CDR of accused Hemant Banker and accused Anant Shetty, it was
found that they were in continuous contact with each other. It is also
found that applicant Anant Shetty has also received calls from accused
Vijay Shetty.

It is also found that the complainant received the
threatening call from accused Vijay Shetty, after the calls between
Anant Shetty, Hemant Banker and Vijay Shetty.
12.

The learned SPP further submitted that during the
interrogation with accused Hemant Banker he revealed that on the say
of accused Anant Shetty he deposited amount of Rs.2 lakhs in the
account of one Harish Pilliyuru. Investigation in this regarding is going
on.

From the CDR, it is clear that the accused Anant Shetty is in
continuous contact with wanted accused gangster Vijay Shetty.

6
13.

MCOC BA 46/2022
Prior approval under MCOC Act was obtained on
22/09/2021 and investigation in that direction is still in progress.
Hence, application MA 1233/2021 was filed to obtain the custody of the
accused but as the health of the accused was not good, hence till today
he has not been taken into custody and so the investigation regarding
MCOC could not be done. Considering these circumstances, he prayed
to reject the application.
14.

Heard the rival submissions of both the sides at length and
also perused the documents filed on record.
15.

On the perusal of the documents filed on record, it appears
that the name of the applicant is not reflected either in the FIR or in the
complaint.
16.

The applicant was taken into custody on 18/08/2021 and
was arrested on 19/08/2021 and was remanded to police custody. The
accused was remanded to judicial custody on 23/09/2021 and since
then he is in jail.
17.

During his custody, the applicant was admitted to Sir J. J.

hospital on 17/09/2021 as he is suffering from various heart related
ailments. He was admitted there till 26/10/2021 i.e. for a period of 39
days. Later, the applicant was again admitted to Bombay hospital on
27/10/2021. He was there till 16/12/2021 i.e. for a period of 50 days.
Thereafter, again the accused was admitted in Nanavati hospital on
09/01/2022. He was there till 15/01/2022 i.e. for a period of 6 days.

7
18.

MCOC BA 46/2022
It appears from the record that though the applicant was in
judicial custody, his police custody was never sought in that entire
period. From this, it can be seen that the applicant is not in good health
and needs treatment frequently. The accused is suffering from Critical
Coronary Artery Disease and hence needs Coronary Artery Bypass
Grafting (CABG) surgery, as early as possible.
19.

Considering the special category of treatment, and
considering the threat to the life of the accused, this court is of the
opinion that the bail application be considered, because life of an
individual should be given much more weightage than the other trifle
things. Considering the above facts and circumstances as well as the
role played by the applicant, I pass the following order :н
ORDER
1. MCOC Bail Application no.46 of 2022 is allowed on medical grounds.
2. The applicant/accused Ananth Premnath Shetty is released on bail on
execution of PR Bond of Rs.1,00,000/н with one or more sureties in the
like amount in CR no.122/2020 registered by DCB CID for the offences
punishable under sections 387, 120 (B) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and under sections 3 (1) (ii), 3 (2) and 3 (4) of the Maharashtra
Control of Organised Crime Act.
3. In lieu of surety, provisional cash bail of Rs.1,00,000/н is granted to
the applicant/accused Ananth Premnath Shetty, for a period of 2
months from the date of order. Applicant/accused Ananth Premnath
Shetty to furnish surety within 2 months after his release.
4. The applicant/accused shall submit the mobile numbers of his sister
8
MCOC BA 46/2022
and one of his relatives along with their detailed addresses.
5. The applicant/accused shall attend the concerned police station on
the 5th day of every month.
6. The applicant/accused shall submit his passport, if any, to the
Investigating officer.
7. The applicant/accused shall not tamper with the evidence of the
prosecution and shall not give threat to the prosecution witnesses.
8. The applicant/accused shall not commit any offence and shall not
misuse his liberty in any manner after his release on bail.
9. Breach of any of the conditions of bail will lead to cancellation of
bail.
10. Cash be accepted after treasury hours.
11. MCOC Bail Application no.46 of 2022 is disposed off accordingly.
PRASHANT
RAMRAO
SITRE
Date : 08/02/2022
Digitally signed
by PRASHANT
RAMRAO SITRE
Date:
2022.02.08
16:08:14 +0530
(Prashant. R. Sitre)
Special Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Greater Bombay
9
MCOC BA 46/2022
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer
Upload date
Name of the Judge
: Mrs. Varsha D. Chowdhri
: 08th February, 2022
H.H.THE SPECIAL JUDGE
SHRI P. R. SITRE (C.R.No.26)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 08th February, 2022
Order signed by P.O. on
08th February, 2022
Order uploaded on
08th February, 2022