1
BEFORE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT AT
BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, AT MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION No.47 OF 2015.
IN
C.R.NO.33 OF 2015
IN
R.A.NO.21 OF 2015.
Naseer 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. Present
applicant, m/acc. Shekar and other 3 accused Akthar Jaipuri, Adil
Jaipuri (son of Akthat) and Leena Paul 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 was received by the applicant accused and his Financial
Establishment 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 that he is MLA . He has also
given false information that financial establishment Lion Oak
India is doing business in preparing liquor, construction and film
production whereas he was aware that there is no such or other
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
4.

Adv. Shetty submitted that applicant was came to be
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
coнaccused Akhtar Jaipuri 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 accused Akhtar Jaipuri 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 coнaccused Akhtar Jaipuri 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 accused Akhtar valuation report of the
property for Rs.21.79 Crores is also given. Adv. Shetty submitted
that coнaccused Akthar is having one half share in the said
5
property and in the case depositors are not settled in time the said
property can be auctioned or sold. He submitted that wife of
accused Akhtar Jaipuri 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 coн
accused Akthar Jaipuri is Rs.21 Crores only, whereas, the share of
coнaccused 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
6
business or property with coнaccused Shekar, as such, there is no
possibility of 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 given by coн
accused Akhtar Jaipuri 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 coн
accused Akhtar Jaipuri (kept in BA 49/2015 filed by Akhtar
Jaipuri).
7.

Chargeнsheet is already filed in the present matter.

Most of the investigation is completed. No doubt that there are
allegations against the applicant of inducing depositors and
cheating by personation etc., 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 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
7
enjoyment. Not a single amount or property was seized by the I.O.
from the applicant accused.
8.

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.

9.

Moreover, the residence of applicant is shown by the
I.O at Mumbai itself. The family of applicant is also alleged to be
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.
10.

The offence levelled against the applicant prescribed
punishment up to 7 years. Even assuming that he fabricated
documents for the purpose of cheating, offence p/u/sec.468 of the
I.P. Code also prescribed punishment upto 7 years.
11.

The role attributed to the present applicant is limited
and lesser to the role played by the main accused Shekar and his
parther Leena. In above circumstances and having regard to the
limited role played by the applicant, I am included to grant him
liberty claimed. As such, I proceed to pass following order.

8
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.