O-B.A.521.2024
1
Dt.20.07.2024
MHCC020100052024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M. P. I. D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, Gr. BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 521 OF 2024
IN
CRIME NO. 89 OF 2023
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.760 OF 2024
Mittal Yatin Gudka
Age 43 Years
Occupation Private Tuition
2701, Dosti Imperia, Elecia Building,
Ghodbunder Road,
Thane (W)- 401 105
…Applicant/
Accused No.2
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Through Mulund police station
…Respondents
Coram : HHJ SHRI N.G. SHUKLA,
(Court No. 20)
Date
: 20.07.2024
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Mr. Nilesh Parab a/w Adv. Mehul Thakkar for
Applicant/accused.
Ld. APP. Mrs. Chaitrali Panshikar for the Respondent/State-EOW.
Ld. Adv. Mr. V.K.Tiwari for intervenor.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
01.

By way of this application, applicant/accused prayed for grant of
bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here in
after referred as “Cr.P.C.” ) in connection with Crime No.184 of 2024
O- B.A.521.2024
2
Dt.20.07.2024
registered with Mulund Police station for the offence punishable under
Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred as “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of The Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act
(here-in-after referred as “MPID Act”).
02.

Ld. Adv. Ms. Chaitrali Panshikar filed reply (Exh.2). Adv. Mr.

V.K.Tiwari for intervenor filed written argument at Exh.4 and strongly
opposed application.
03.

I have heard Ld. Advocate Mehul Shah along with Nilesh Parab
for the applicant, Ld. APP Chiatrali Panshikar for prosecution and Ld
Advocate V.K.Tiwari for the intervenor/informant.
04.

Crux of the prosecution case briefly is that, applicant is wife of
absconded accused No.1. Applicant and accused No.1 insisted informant
to give him amount for investment in shares as accused No.1 was
dealing in shares. Accused No.1 told informant that he had franchises of
M/s Ventura Security Limited and earning huge profit in dealing in
shares. It is alleged that, applicant and accused No.1 came to meet
informant in luxurious cars and they deceived and induced informant to
invest Rs. 25,00,000/-. When the informant shown his inability to invest
such huge amount, then they insisted to invest less amount.
Accordingly, informant transferred total amount of Rs. 15,20,000/- in
seven installment and one installment in cash to accused No.1 to invest
said amount in shares. However, as promised by accused No.1,
informant did not receive return benefit of the said amount within six
months. It is further alleged that applicant had assured to return the
amount invested by the informant by selling her ornaments. On her
O- B.A.521.2024
3
Dt.20.07.2024
such assurance informant invested the amount. Informant did not
receive the amount invested by him. When cheque given by accused
No.1 was also dishonored. Thus informant had filed criminal case under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, against accused No.1.
Applicant is beneficiary of the said amount and had promised to return
the amount by selling her ornaments. Alleging all these facts informant
lodge FIR and applicant being accused No.2 is arrested.
05.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant argued that role attributed to the
applicant is very limited as she assured to return invested amount to the
informant by selling her ornament. Applicant has not deceived and
insisted the informant to invest the amount. Husband of the applicant
i.e accused No.1 had taken Rs.15,20,000/- from the informant.
Applicant is taking tuitions for her livelihood. It is also argued that,
applicant is not involved in the crime. Investigation is almost
completed. Further detention of the applicant for interrogation is not
required. Applicant is ready to co-operate police. Her parent in laws and
son aged 20 years are depend upon her. Hence, advocate for the
applicant prayed to grant bail.
06.

Ld APP instructed by investigating officer argued that, offence is
registered against both the accused. Applicant is wife of accused No.1
who is absconding since long. As per FIR, fraud committed by both the
accused, of the amount of informant is of Rs. 15,20,000/- However, in
the investigation other investors are also revealed. Total amount of
fraud is of Rs.2,42,70,000/-. At present, only seven investors are
revealed. Number of investors may be increased in further investigation
amount of Rs.85,00,000/-was found in the bank account of applicant.
Such huge amount can not be earned in profession of tuition. Applicant
O- B.A.521.2024
4
Dt.20.07.2024
has promised to repay the amount to the informant by selling her
ornaments. Investigation is not yet completed. Accused No.1 is prime
accused who is absconding since long and have had link in four
countries. If applicant is released on bail, applicant might abscond in
other country. It it is happened her presence will not be secured for
trial. Hence Ld. APP prayed to reject the application.
07.

Ld. advocate Mr. V.K.Tiwari submits that, applicant is also
involved in the offence. He relied on the bank statement of the
applicant. It shows huge amount totaling of Rs.85,00,000/- is lying in
her various back accounts. He argued that though applicant is relied on
order of issuance of process thereby dropping name of the applicant in
the said order in the criminal case filed under Section 138 of The
Negotiable Instrument Act. Dropping name of the applicant is not
ground to given clean chit to the applicant in presence crime. Applicant
is not beneficiary. Though she was not drawer of the cheque. Therefore,
proceeding was not issued against the applicant, Hence, Ld. advocate
for intervenor prayed to reject the application. He relied on following
ruling :
1. Sazid Khan Vs. State of Haryana and another in CRM-M-31873
of 2018 dated 27.07.2018, passed by Hon’ble High Court of
Panjab And Haryana.
2. Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and
Another, 2012 DGLS(SC)212( Supreme Court).
08.

I have considered submission and perused record. Applicant is
accused No.2 and she is wife of accused No.1. As per say of police and
submission of Ld. APP, accused No.1 is absconding and not found during
investigation. FIR shows that, applicant was also alongwith accused
O- B.A.521.2024
5
Dt.20.07.2024
No.1 to insist informant to invest amount in shares through them. Not
only this, but applicant also assured informant to repay amount by
selling her ornament if he would not get benefit. Believing on these
words of the applicant, informant invested Rs. 15,20,000/- in the shares
through accused No.1 and applicant. It appears from say of the police
that, till now seven depositors are revealed who invested amount
totaling Rs. 2,42,70,000/- as they were deceived and induced at the
hands of accused No.1 and applicant. It appears from the documents
submitted by the intervenor that, total amount of Rs. 85,00,000/- was
found lying the in bank account of applicant. Bank statement of
applicant is showing deposits and withdrawn of lakhs of rupees.
Maximum deposit is Rs. 10,00,000/- and 25,00,000/- and withdrawal
amount is also in lakha of rupees. Particulars of deposited amount
clearly indicate that, such huge amount can not be earned from tuition
fees. Thus prima facie there is sufficient material showing involvement
of the applicant in the alleged crime.

Ld. advocate for intervenor
submitted that, two vehicles are disposed off. He also submitted that
son of the applicant has threatened to the informant. In view of these
threats, accused is disentitled to get bail. Investigation is in progress. If
at this stage, applicant is released on bail, she will create hurdle in
investigation in collecting information of deposits, the amount of fraud
and property of accused to be attached.
09.

Though Ld. Magistrate had not issued process against the
applicant in the case for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, but that can not be alone ground to hold that applicant
is not involved in this case. For all these reasons, application deserves to
be rejected. Hence, I pass following order.

O- B.A.521.2024
6
Dt.20.07.2024
ORDER
1.

Bail Application 521 of 2024 is reject and stands disposed
off.

Digitally signed by NITIN
GANGADHAR SHUKLA
Date: 2024.07.25 16:38:12
+0530
( N.G. SHUKLA )
Designated Judge under MPID Act, C.R.NO.20
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.

Dt. 20/07/2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Submitted on
Signed on
:
:
:
:
20.07.2024
24.07.2024 (21st holiday being Sunday)
24.07.2024
25.07.2024
O- B.A.521.2024
7
Dt.20.07.2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
20.07.2024
Mrs. R. R. Hate
Name of the Judge
HHJ Shri N.G. SHUKLA
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
20.07.2024
Judgment and order signed by 25.07.2024
P.O.
Judgment/order uploaded on
25.07.2024