O-B.A.No.185/2024
1
Dt.14.03.2024
MHCC020036532024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M. P. I. D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 185 OF 2024
IN
MPID REMAND APPLICATION NO. 233 OF 2024
IN
CRIME NO. 752 OF 2021
Manohar Raghunath Shetty
Age- 53 yrs, Occ: Nil,
Residing at B 104,
Vaibhav Co. Op. H. Society,
behind Dindoshi Bus Depot,
Mumbai- 400 097.
at present Taloja Central Prision,
Mumbai.

…Applicant/
Accused
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Through Mulund Police Station, Thane,
Vide C.R.No. 752 of 2021
to be served through Public Prosecutor,
Sessions Court, Mumbai.

…Respondent
Coram : HHJ Abhijeet A. Nandgaonkar
(Court No. 20)
Date: 14.03.2024
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Shri Vikram V Tare-Patil for the Applicant/Accused.
Ld. APP. Ms. Chaitrali Panshikar for the Respondent/State-EOW.

O- B.A.185/2024
2
Dt.14.03.2024
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
By
way
of
this
application,
applicant/accused
Manohar
Raghunath Shetty prayed for grant of bail under Section 437 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here in after referred as “CrPC” ) in
connection with Crime No. 752/2021 registered with Mulund Police
station for the offence punishable under section 406, 409 and 420, r/w
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (here in after referred as “IPC”) with
section 3 and 4 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors ( In
Financial Establishment ) Act 1999 ( here in after referred as “MPID
Act”).
02.

Ld.

Adv.

Shri
Vikram
V
Tare-Patil
appearing
for
the
accused/applicant submitted that, on the complaint of Ms. Dilice
Cardoso the above offence having Crime no. 752/202 came to be
registered with Mulund Police Station, Mumbai on 07.07.2021. In that
crime the applicant/accused Manohar Raghunath Shetty came to be
arrested on 20.02.2024 and presently detained in magisterial custody
of this court.
03.

Ld. Adv. Shri Tare-Patil appearing for the accused/applicant
submitted that, applicant/accused is false involved in this case and he
has nothing to do with this case. Nothing incriminating is recovered or
discovered from him. During the course investigation the material
evidence collected clearly shown that applicant/accused is no where
connected with the alleged offence neither he is beneficiary. Applicant
has not induced any of the witness, complainant and investors to invest
their money in scheme or crime. Properties of the co-accused are
already attached and secured by the respondent. So also respondent has
seized all the personal accounts of the applicant/accused. Applicant is
residing in Mumbai since past several years alongwith his family and
has roots in the society hence there is no chance of his absconding.

O- B.A.185/2024
04.

3
Dt.14.03.2024
Ld. Adv. Shri Tare-Patil appearing for the accused/applicant
submitted that, though applicant is in judicial custody in other crime
lodged in jail, investigating officer has never interrogated the applicant
for any further investigation and there is no progress in the matter. Trial
will take its own time and no fruitful purpose will be gain by keeping
the applicant behind the bars till then. Investigation is over hence
applicant’s custody is unwarranted. There is no material on record to
indicate that applicant/accused was a party to the crime and has
cheated the complainant and investors. Applicant will not
tamper
prosecution evidence and witnesses. He will abide all the condition
imposed on him while granting bail.
05.

Ld. Adv. Shri Tare-Patil appearing for the accused/applicant
submitted that, applicant/accused will not indulged in similar offence
as applicant is legal practitioner and practicing in local limits of this
Hon`ble Court. No prejudice will cause to either of the parties if
applicant is released on bail in fact if bail is refused applicant will suffer
grate harm and irreparable loss which can not be compensated in terms
of money. Hence he prayed to grant bail to the applicant accused.
06.

Say of the investigating officer and Ld. APP is called.

Investigating officer through Ld. APP filed their say vide Exh.2. I.O.
through Ld. APP submitted that, applicant/accused is arrested on
20.02.2024 and presently he is detained in judicial custody of Taloja
Central Prison. During the course of investigation, it is revealed that
applicant/accused is working as an account in Malaika Co-Op Credit
Society and knows all the financial affair of the said credit society.
Applicant/accused in connivance with other accused cheated investors
and gain profit and out of said profit he has purchased immovable
properties at various places. He is account in the said financial
O- B.A.185/2024
4
Dt.14.03.2024
establishment Malayika Co-op. Credit society having full knowledge
about the account and money transaction.
07.

I.O. through Ld. APP submitted that, Offence is serious and deep
investigation is required having involvement of various investors out of
which 71 investors have approached to them with amount duped
raising to Rs. 8,46,28,334/-. If bail is granted to him he will destroy all
the evidence and documents. Concrete evidence is found by the police
and the same will produce before the court at relevant time.
Applicant/accused
is
having
criminal
antecedent.

Earlier
also
applicant /accused has been arrested in offence registered with Mira
Road police station of the same nature and also the fact that same type
of offence has been registered at Mangloor police station Karnataka
against the accused and others. If applicant/accused is released on bail
he will not remain present for trial and tamper with the evidence and
hamper the investigation. Hence the prosecution requested to reject the
bail application.
08.

Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Vikram V. Tare-Patil appearing for the
accused/applicant, and Ld. APP Ms. Chaitrali Panshikar for the StateEOW alongwith investigating officer Mr. Jitendra Zoman for Mulund
Police station. Perused application, documents and submissions of
respective parties.
09.

On query by this Court, Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused
during the course of argument submitted the orders of the bail granted
to the applicant accused in other offence registered with Mira Road
Police station granted by Special Judge MPID Act and Addl. Sessions
Judge Thane in Spl. Case No. 232/2021 below Ex. 117 dt. 21-02-2024
and also filed copy of affidavit tendered by Sr. P. I. Vijaysinh Bagal
before Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Criminal Bail Application No.

O- B.A.185/2024
5
Dt.14.03.2024
3072 of 2022 and copy of bail order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in
Criminal Bail Application No. 1270 of 2022 dy. 14-09-2023 granted to
another accused Lovel Banedict Baptist in the same offence.
10.

When the query was raised about non mentioning about earlier
offence and application of bail in the present bail application and orders
on the same and not supplying copy of anticipatory bail orders as per
direction of Hon’ble Apex Court, the ld. Adv. for the applicant /accused
failed to give reasons for the same. It means, applicant /accused has not
mentioned about earlier offence registered with Mira Road police
station of the same nature and also the fact that same type of offence
has been registered at Mangloor police station Karnataka. Also the fact
that the applicant/accused was taken into MCR and lodged in the jail
and thereafter when bail was granted to him came to be arrest on
20.02.2024 in the offence registered with Muland Police station. This is
willfully suppression fact of earlier offence and bail application and
orders or it inadvertently did not mention for the reason best known to
the applicant/accused.
11.

However it is admitted that, applicant/accused received the
amount from the financial establishment Malayika Co-op. Credit society
may be by way of salary and the bank statement of applicant/accused
shows series of such transaction. Hence it is clear that, from financial
establishment Malayika Co-op. Credit society the applicant/accused has
received amount that of the invested and has been utilized in
purchasing the property.
12.

As per the complaint, it is applicant/accused who hatched the
investors by luring them of giving handsome returns on their
investments and received amount with valuable gifts such as motor car,
mobile etc. for bringing more investors, even though having knowledge
O- B.A.185/2024
6
Dt.14.03.2024
about the same. Thus considering the gravity of offence, applicant
/accused and accused Gilbert Pavstin Baptist and other directors of the
said financial establishment Malayika Co-op. Credit society accepted
that amount, but failed to return as assured thereby committed an
offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act which has
been
specifically
made
out
against
the
applicant/accused.

Applicant/accused have not only contacted investors but also gave them
full assurance that the company of Accused No.1 Gilbert Pavstin Baptist
and other directors of financial establishment Malayika Co-op. Credit
society thus attracted investors
to invest their amount
received amount without payment ran away. Now
and when
Gilbert Pavstin
Baptist is arrested and other directors are yet to arrested as may not be
traceable or absconding.
13.

Present applicant/accused came to be arrested on 20-02-2024
though FIR has been lodged vide crime No. 752 of 2021 with Mulund
Police station as in other offence the accused was lodged in jail and
investigation is going on. Therefore when the investigation is still going
on, and it has revealed that applicant/accused has played vital role in
commission of the offence having prima facie case has been made out
by the prosecution. If the applicant/accused is released on bail, there
are chance of his absconding and he may tamper documentary evidence
and prosecution witnesses. At this prima facie amount of 71 investors
have approached to police with amount duped raising to Rs.
8,46,28,334/- involved, and other investors yet to come forward and
their statements are not yet recorded the amount may increase.
14.

Ld. Adv. For the applicant/accused has relied on the observation
of earlier bail orders and submitted that nothing is remained to
investigated. In rebuttal Ld. App submitted that said observation
O- B.A.185/2024
7
Dt.14.03.2024
concerned to the predicated offence can not be useful as there are more
than 50 bank account of the applicant/accused and properties at
Mumbai, Thane, Vasai, Bhyander, Mangloor is to traced and necessary
action of seizer and freezing of the same by way notification is to be
progressed. It is settled law in view of observation in Bimla Tiwari Vs.
State of Bihar that, “ Process of Criminal Law, particularly in matters of
grant of bail, is not skin to money recovery proceedings. The process of
criminal law cannot be utilized for arm twisting and money recovery, as
recovery of money is essentially with the realm of civil Proceedings”.
Also in
the case of C. B. I. –vs— P. S. Jayaprakash and othr.

(2023)1SCC 314 that, “In case of multiple accused, there is need to
consider role of each accused and nature of allegations against each of
them”.
15.

Ld. APP place reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in case of
Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation in Criminal
Appeal No. 728 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 9706 of 2012
decided on 09-05-2013, and in case of Y. S. Jagmohan Reddy .Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2013
(Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 3404 of 2013 decided on 09-05-2013,
wherein it held that, “While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character
of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
trail, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with,
the larger interest of the public/state and other similar considerations.
It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the
legislature has used the words” reasonable grounds for believing
“instead of “the evidence“ which means the Court dealing with the
O- B.A.185/2024
8
Dt.14.03.2024
grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case
against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce
prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this
stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
Economic offenses constitute a class apart and need to be visited
with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence
having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting
the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious
threat to the financial health of the country.”
16.

Ld. App has also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
case of Y. S. Jagmohan Reddy .Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation in
Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 3404 of
2013 decided on 09-05-2013, wherein it held that,” While granting
bail , the court has to keep in mind the nature of the accusations, the
nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment
which conviction will entail , the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility
of securing the presence of the accused at the trail reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tempered with the larger interest
of the public/state and other similar considerations”.
17.

In view of above discussion, being the offence is of serious
economic fraud and considering the facts and circumstances alongwith
the gravity of the offence, the applicant/accused is not entitled to be
released on bail at this stage even though he is one of the victim being
investor in this offence. But being having active participation in
commission of the offence and beneficiary of the proceeds of the crime,
he is not entitled to be released on even stringent conditions of the bail.

O- B.A.185/2024
9
Dt.14.03.2024
Hence the application for grant of bail moved by the applicant/accused
deserves to be rejected. Hence I proceed to pas following order.
ORDER
1.

Bail
application
No.

185/2024
moved
by
Applicant/Accused No. 2 -Manohar Raghunath Shetty in
C.R.No. 752 of 2021 registered with Mulund Police Station
for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420
read with 34 of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of MPID Act
in R.A.No.233 of 2024 is rejected.
2.

Case papers be filed.

3.

Concerned authority to take note.

4.

Accordingly, Bail Application No. 185/2024 is disposed of
Dt. 14/03/2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
:
:
:
(Abhijeet A. Nandgaonkar )
Special Judge, C.R.NO.20
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
14.03.2024
14.03.2024
14.03.2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
14.03.2024
Mrs. R. R. Hate
Name of the Judge
HHJ Shri Abhijeet A.
Nandgaonkar
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
14.03.2024
Judgment and order signed by 14.03.2024
P.O.
Judgment/order uploaded on
14.03.2024