:1:
Order in BA no. 411/23
MHCC020072602023
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.411 OF 2023
IN
C.R. NO. 631 OF 2022
Pinky Naresh Gundecha
Aged : 41 years, Occ : Housewife,
Residing at 568/2, Subhash Nagar,
Madhusudan Sarkar,
Machiswala Bldg, New Mill Road,
Kurla (West), Mumbai.

]
]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused no.2
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through Kurla Police Station)
]
]… Respondents
2. Balu Poonaji Rokade
Residing at 301, Om Girijashankar Bldg.,
Vasant Nagar, Near Post Office, New Mill Road,
Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070.

]
]
]
]… Intervenor
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Imran Shaikh for the Applicant/Accused.
Ld. Advocate V. T. Dubey for Intervenor.
Ld. SPP Malankar for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI S. B. JOSHI
(Court Room no. 7)
DATED : 15th June, 2023.
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is moved by the applicant/accused Pinky
Naresh Gundecha, resident of Kurla (W), Mumbai under Section
:2:
Order in BA no. 411/23
439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with
the crime vide C.R. No.631 of 2022 registered with Kurla Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420
r/w Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred as “IPC”) and Section 3 of The Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (hereinafter
referred to as “M.P.I.D. Act”).
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Balu Poonaji Rokade,
resident of Kurla (W), Mumbai filed his complaint with Kurla
Police Station on 29.07.2022 and gave statement that he is
retired official from Air India Company. Said Company employed
him temporarily. On retirement, he was to vacate the residential
accommodation in his occupation so he was in search of alternate
accommodation through agent. Since he was likely to get
minimum pension, therefore, he could not afford accommodation
on landlord basis in Kurla area. In the mean time, he noticed
through agent that one accommodation in Kurla area is available
and said room belong to Naresh Gaharilal Gundecha, who is
proprietor of one cloth shop named and styled as M/s. Rashi
Designer. So he went at there to meet said proprietor and
thereafter in the month of June 2020, he again went to said
room. Accordingly, he accompanied with agent and he was
introduced with landlord of said room namely Naresh Gundecha.
As he found said accommodation favourable to him, he agreed to
purchase said accommodation from Naresh Gundecha by giving
him heavy deposit to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees
Eighteen Lakhs only).

:3:
3. According
to
complainant
Order in BA no. 411/23
on
16.06.2020,
26.06.2020,
01.07.2020 and 04.08.2020 he paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only), Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only),
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees Five Lakhs only) respectively by RTGS from his saving
bank account no.456110100009381 of YES Bank. Thereafter, in
the month of November 2020, he was put in possession of said
room and started to stay at there. Accordingly, on receiving
possession of said room he executed Leave and License
Agreement
dated
03.08.2020
with
said
landlord
Naresh
Gundecha. As per the said Leave and License Agreement, it was
agreed that said room would be in his possession for the period
20.06.2020 to 19.04.2022 and the sum of Rs.18,00,000/(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) given by him will be returned to
him. Accordingly, said agreement came to be signed by he
himself, Naresh Gundecha and agent namely Rajesh Gaikwad and
Pravin Nirbhavane. Later on after some period, he came to know
from Naresh Gundecha that he himself, his wife Pinky Gundecha
(applicant) and brother of his wife namely Kamlesh Jain are
Directors of M/s. Rashi Designer which is indulged in
manufacturing and selling readymade cloths and it is registered
one. It was also said to him that yearly turnover of said Company
is Rs. 1.5 Crores to Rs. 2 Crores and there is one scheme for
investing the sum and if sum is invested for a year with the said
Company, interest will be given thrice on the said sum. Also, if
the investment is made for the period of two years then interest
will be paid five times i.e. more than bank rate.

:4:
Order in BA no. 411/23
4. According to complainant, the Directors of the said Company
were in need of money and loan proposal will not be approved at
the earliest, therefore, (Naresh Gundecha and his wife Pinky
Gundecha (applicant)) opened scheme in question. By keeping
faith on the landlord and proprietor of M/s. Rashi Designer, the
complainant decided to become member of the said scheme by
investing money.
5. According to complainant he made huge deposit from time to
time to the tune of Rs.27,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs
Fifty Thousand only) by way of RTGS in the name of M/s. Rashi
Designer. On making said investment, the Directors of said
Company were giving him monthly return. During the period
September 2020 to February 2021, he had received monthly
return to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on
his investment. Thereafter, he didn’t get return. On making
inquiry, he asked the proprietor of the said Company to return
sum invested with them. That time oral clashes took place
amongst them. However, in order to have guarantee for return of
the sum invested, the Directors of the said Company entered into
agreement with him on 16.06.2021 and also gave him post dated
cheques drawn on Canara Bank, K.N.S. Bank and ICICI Bank.
6. According to complainant, later on, he came to know on
24.07.2021 that Naresh Gundecha has fled away with his family
and also closed his shop namely M/s. Rashi Designer and Kayara
Collection. He also found that the room in which said Naresh
Gundecha was residing, was locked one. When he tried to have a
contact with Naresh Gundecha on mobile, those mobile found
:5:
Order in BA no. 411/23
switch off. Also the mobile belong to his wife Pinky Gundecha
(applicant) and his daughter found switch off. He also came to
know that Naresh Gundecha has converted the sim in his mobile
in another mobile handset.
7. Thus, according to complainant, he has been cheated by Naresh
Gundecha to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh
only) and also cheated to the tune of Rs.27,50,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) which were received
from him for running the business. Likewise Naresh Gundecha
and his wife as well as the brother of his wife namely Kamlesh
Jain cheated to the resident from Kurla area namely Changdev
Mathaji Dhaktode to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight
Lakhs only), Shrikant Changdev Dhaktode to the tune of
Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only), Pandurang Ananda
Shinde to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only),
Chandrakant Shankar Pawar to the tune of Rs.18,50,000/(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), Pravin Suresh
Kalbhor to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only),
Jayashree Mahavir Rajawat to the tune of Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees
Twelve Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), Vastimal Ghanrup Munot to
the tune of Rs.27,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Fifty
Thousand only), total amount of Rs.1,26,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore Twenty Six Lakhs only).
8. On receiving complaint as above, Kurla Police Station registered
C.R. No.631 of 2022 dated 29.07.2022 for the offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Sections 34 and 120B of of IPC and under Section 3 of MPID Act against the applicant
:6:
Order in BA no. 411/23
and two accused.
9. The applicant by moving this application, denied above said
prosecution story in toto. According to her, she has not committed
any kind of offence and she has falsely implicated in the present
crime. She is victim of the circumstances. Charges leveled are not
applicable to her. Since arrest she is in custody and no purpose
would be served by detaining her till conclusion of trial. Thus, she
prayed for releasing her on bail and also submitted that she is
ready to abide condition if imposed Thus, present application is
outcome.
10. The Ld. SPP and Investigating Officer both have filed their reply
cum say at Exhibit no.2 and thereby, resisted the application on
the ground that investigation is going on and the property which
is obtained by accused for this crime from complainant and other
witnesses is yet to be seized. If the applicant released on bail,
then possibility of tampering and threatening, the complainant
and witnesses cannot be ruled out. The applicant was absconding
since one and half year. There will be hurdle in carrying
investigation and thus
both submitted for rejecting the
application.
11. Heard Counsel for the applicant, the Ld. SPP and the intervenor-
complainant at length. Also perused the documents filed by the
intervenor which are agreement between the complainant and
accused/applicant
and
her
husband,
Leave
and
License
Agreement, bank statement and bounced cheque.
12. In the light of the facts and submissions on record following
:7:
Order in BA no. 411/23
points arise for my determination and findings are given for the
reasons mentioned thereunder are as follows:Sr.
No
POINTS
FINDINGS
1.

Whether the applicant is entitled for bail
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as prayed?

In the negative.

2.

What Order ?

As per final order.
REASONS
As to point nos. 1 and 2 :
13. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there is
no material and evidence on record to show involvement of the
applicant in the crime. No single rupee or document is recovered
from the applicant. The alleged transaction appears in between
husband of the applicant and the informant. The applicant is not
having concern with the crime in question as well as the
transaction. No specific role is attributed to the applicant. There
is nothing on record to show that the alleged institute is private
limited Company and investment is made therein. So provisions
of MPID Act didn’t come in picture. The applicant is ready to
deposit Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). Applicant is
having small children. Therefore, he submitted for releasing
applicant on bail.
14. The Ld. SPP submitted in accordance with the say filed by the
Investigating Officer on record. According to prosecutor, the
investigation is still going on and there is ample evidence against
the applicant to show her involvement. There is possibility of
:8:
Order in BA no. 411/23
increase in number of investors. The charge-sheet is yet to be
filed and therefore, application be rejected.
15. Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant placed on record copies
of Adhaar Card to show that the applicant has three children and
there is no body to look after them. He also submitted that the
alleged transaction between the applicant and her husband with
the informant was a friendly loan transaction. The applicant’s
Counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to show that
applicant is investor and people invested the money. However, the
Ld. Prosecutor and the intervenor pointed out that the agreement
dated 02.07.2021 speaks that applicant and her husband were
under obligation to pay monthly profit to the informant.
16. The intervenor also made submission on the same footing like
prosecution. He relied upon the decision in Bail Application
No.206 of 2020 dated 14.12.2020 given by Hon’ble Delhi High
Court.
17. On going through the F.I.R. dated 29.07.2022 given by the
complainant/informant namely Balu Poonaji Rokade, it can be
seen that when he was in search of accommodation for himself,
he came to know from the estate agent that there is one room
belonging to Naresh Gundecha proprietor of M/s. Rashi Designer,
Kurla.

After
getting
said
room
on
making
deposit
of
Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) with Naresh
Gundecha and after developing good relations with said Naresh
Gundecha, it was informed him (informant) that he himself
(Naresh Gundecha), his wife Pinky (the applicant) and his
:9:
Order in BA no. 411/23
brother Kamlesh Jain, have goodwill in the business run by them
under name and style M/s. Rashi Designer and have scheme of
two investing funds fetching handsome interest at triple rate than
the interest rate than the interest rate prevailing at Bank. The
informant further submitted that he being retired person kept
faith on them all with the understanding that investing money is
the best source for gaining income and therefore, he decided to
join said scheme. Thereafter, he paid a sum of Rs.27,50,000/(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) from time to
time by way RTGS mode and in cash also. Then he got handsome
interest thereon till February 2021. But thereafter he stopped to
receive the interest on the sum invested. This resulted into
entering into agreement dated 16.06.2021 to secure the sum
invested with Naresh Gundecha and also received post dated
cheques from Naresh Gundecha. But finally he came to know that
Naresh Gundecha and his family have fled away by closing his
business M/s. Rashi Designer and Kayara Collection. Therefore,
noticing cheating caused with him, he knocked the doors of the
Police Station concerned against the applicant and others.
18. By these allegations in the F.I.R. it is clear that the applicant, her
husband and another were the person who introduced the
informant the scheme of getting handsome interest on the
amount invested. It also make it clear the contents in the F.I.R.
that after making investment with the M/s. Rashi Designer, Kurla,
he had received interest in return for certain period i.e. upto
February 2021 and thereafter, stopped to get the interest. Here
the applicant has not placed on record any document to show
that business run under the name and style M/s. Rashi Designer
:10:
Order in BA no. 411/23
is registered under any law. In fact prima facie it shows that the
applicant and her husband and her brother all are stated to be
Directors of the said business and the scheme run by them
appears clearly with a new to grab money from the depositors.
The perusal of the reply of Investigating Officer, shows that
investigation of the crime is not yet over, the assets are not yet
traced out and secured by the investigating machinery which are
sufficient to repay depositors with huge amount of more than
Rs.1,26,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Six Lakhs only). The
investigation in respect of money is going on and charge-sheet is
not yet filed by the Investigating Officer as it reveals from the
recitals in the say of Investigating Officer. Also the say by
Investigating Officer shows that the applicant was absconding for
a period of more than one and half year and possibility of her
fleeing away can not be ruled out. Nothing independent is on
record to show that any undertaking is given to pay the sum to
the depositor.
19. In the above backdrop and circumstances, the applicant has not
made out application for grant of bail. Hence, point no.1 is
answered in the negative.
20. In view of aforesaid reason and findings to point no.1 as above,
the application has to be dismissed. Hence, point no.2 is
answered as per final order. As such following is the order :
ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No. 411 of 2023 is hereby rejected.
2. Accordingly, Respondent/I.O. to take the note of this order.

:11:
Order in BA no. 411/23
3. The present Bail Application No. 411 of 2023 stands disposed of
accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
Digitally signed
by SANJAY
BHALCHANDRA
JOSHI
Date:
2023.06.20
10:24:36 +0530
Date : 15.06.2023.

Directly Dictated on
Draft given on
Signed on
: 15.06.2023.
: 15.06.2023.
: 15.06.2023.

( S. B. Joshi)
Designated Judge and Addl.
Sessions Judge, City Civil &
Sessions Court, Mumbai.

:12:
Order in BA no. 411/23
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
20.06.2023 at 10.20 a.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Mrs. G. P. Acharekar
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. S. B. Joshi
C.R. No.07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
15.06.2023
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
15.06.2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on
20.06.2023