1
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
AT BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSION COURT, MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION No.37 OF 2015.
IN
C.R. No.212 OF 2015 of Malvani Police Station.
Avinash Baliram Shewale.
Age: 26 years.
Residing at : R.No.505, 5th floor,
Siddheshwar Park, Near Titwala Rly. Stn.
Titwala (West), Dist. Thane.

Е
Applicant/Accused.

V/s.
1.The State of Maharashtra.
At the instance of Malvani Police Station.
2.The Senior Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wings,
Mumbai.
3.The State of Maharashtra.

Е
Respondent.

Appearance:
Adv. Chavan with Adv. Kiran Mardhekar for Applicant.
Ld. SPP Adv. Kanojia for the State.
Coram : HHJ D.P. Surana,
Special Judge, M.P.I.D. Act. (C.R. No.36)
Dated : 05/05/2015.
ORAL ORDER
1.

This is an application under section 437 r/w sec. 439 of
the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to accused /applicant in C.R.No.212/2015
2
of Malvani Police station for the offence punishable under section
420, 406 of the I.P.Code and section 3 of the MPID Act.
2.

It is the case of prosecution that informant Yasmin Kausar
Memon gave information to Malvani police station on 09/04/2015,
alleging that on 08/04/2015 she received phone calls from 5 different
mobiles wherein, she was told that the person calling is from Bajaj
Finance and if she wants loan it can be availed. It is further alleged by
informant Yasmin that she was in need of money. Hence, she
consented for loan of Rs. 3 Lakhs. As per informant she was asked to
first deposit 10% of the amount i.e., Rs. 30,000/н. Informant further
alleged that she deposited Rs.30,000/н with the person sent by the
alleged Bajaj Finance, but thereafter, all the mobile calls on those
mobiles were not responding.

Informant further alleged that her
amount of Rs.30,000/н was misappropriated on the false assurance of
availing loan amount of Rs.30 Lakhs.
3.

Heard, Adv. Chavan with Adv. Kiran Mardhekar for
applicant. Also heard Ld. SPP and I.O. PSI Wadikar of Malwani police
station. Perused say reply filed by I.O. Perused application and the
police case papers. Adv. for applicant submitted that applicant is
employee of Destimoney Distribution and Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd.,
and fetching salary. He further submitted that applicant has nothing
3
to do with the business affairs of the alleged company. He submitted
that applicant is not anyway involved in the alleged fraud. As per him
the provisions of MPID Act are not applicable. He further submitted
that applicant was came to be arrested on 09/04/2015 & was
sufficiently interrogated in police custody till 13/04/2015. That
nothing is required to be interrogated from him. He submitted that
offence levelled against the applicant prescribe punishment up to 7
years only and hence, no purpose will be served in keeping the
applicant behind bars.
4.

As against this the Ld. APP and I.O. in one voice
submitted that investigation is at initial stage. There is prima facie
case made out against the applicant. He is admittedly was the
employee of the company. That from the mobile call records it is
apparent that SMS were sent as agent of Bajaj Finance. As per I.O.
there are in all 200 employees in the company who were given task to
contact daily around 100 persons on their mobile. That it was the
present accused person, according to I.O. , who personated them to be
Bajaj Finance agent and thereby accepted the hard earning of the
persons and committed fraudulent default of the same. As per I.O., till
date only 8 investors have come forward whereas, there is possibility
of thousands of investors being defaulted by the applicant accused by
4
hatching conspiracy with others. The Ld. SPP and I.O. submitted that
at this initial stage of investigation, applicant may not be granted bail.
5.

Hearing rival contentions, firstly I would like to mention
here that it is highly doubted as to how section 3 of the provisions of
MPID Act is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in
hand. On perusal of the statements from the police case papers it
seems that the case putforth by all of them is of cheating them for the
amount of 10% of the amount of proposed loan amount which was to
be availed, on the pretext of availing loan to them. Whereas, as per
section 2(c) of the MPID Act, “deposit” includes and shall be deemed
always to have included any receipt of money to be returned after a
specified period or otherwise, either in cash or in kind. In the case in
hand no doubt that there was receipt of money, but there was no
assurance of its return after specified period or otherwise. Hence, it is
highly doubted whether the allegations as alleged by the victim can be
said to attract the provisions of MPID Act.
6.

Moreover, it is admitted that all the offences as on today
levelled against the applicant prescribed punishment up to 7 years.
Since 13/04/2015 applicant was not interrogated though is in the
judicial custody. Test identification parade of applicant from the
alleged investors or informant was also not conducted. If within a
5
span of around 1 month there is no progress, as seen from the police
case papers of the further investigation, except recording of
statements of 8 witnesses and seizure of mobile of the accused and
recording statement of the accused persons, which is not admissible,
and the other ancillary investigation, there is no property to keep the
applicant behind the bars. Moreover, there is no statement, as seen
from the police case papers, of any of the employee of alleged
financial establishment. The photo copy of the message, as seen from
the chargesheet, does not show that informant was asked to deposit
any amount. As per I.O. advertisement was given in the news paper
calling upon the person who were dissuade, but as on today only 8
persons have come forward out of which only 3 persons are from the
jurisdiction of Malwani Police Station. I.O. submitted that the other
witnesses whose statements are recorded have approached to the
concern
police
station
of
their
jurisdiction.

Under
above
circumstances, I am of the view that no purpose will be served in
keeping the applicant behind the bars, when progress of investigation
is so slow. Simultaneously, the contention of I.O. can not be kept
aside that for further investigation presence of applicant is required. I
am of the view that for the said purpose strict conditions can be
imposed on the applicant, so that I.O. should get a fair opportunity to
6
interrogate the applicant. In the result application deserves to be
considered. 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.

212/2015 of Malwani Police Station for the offence p/u/sec.420 &
406 of the I.P.Code and sec.3 of the MPID Act, on his furnishing PB of
Rs.50,000/н with one or more sureties to make up the like amount
with conditions that:
нApplicant shall mark his presence punctually and
regularly on alternate day with I.O. between 10 am to 1 pm for
coming 2 months from the day of his release and thereafter and
meanwhile as and when called by I.O.
нApplicant shall not in any way tamper with the
prosecution witnesses or documents.
нApplicant shall coнoperate with the investigating agency.
нApplicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mumbai or
Thane without prior permission of I.O. till filing of chargesheet.
нBail to be furnished before this designated court.
Request of advocate for applicant to release applicant
provisionally for 8 weeks on furnishing cash deposit of Rs. 60,000/н is
granted.
Dtd. 05/05/2015.

(D.P. Surana)
Special Judge, M.P.I.D. Act. &
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
At Bombay.

7
8