:1:
Order on BA No.34/24
MHCC020007182024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2024
IN
C.R. No.95 of 2022
Raghavendra D
S/o Shri Devendrappa
Residing at No.8-11-184/168,
Krishna Devarappa,
Raichur, Karnataka-584103.

]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused no.1
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through EOW, Unit-8, Mumbai)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Swapnil Telang for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
Ld. Advocate Rajesh Ghag for First Informant/ Intervenor.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 17th February, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused
no.1 Raghavendra D resident of Karnataka, under Section 439 of
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail.

2.

A case being C.R. No.95 of 2022 is registered with EOW, Unit
VIII, Mumbai (C.R. No.729 of 2022 registered with Malad Police
:2:
Order on BA No.34/24
Station) against the present Applicant for the offence punishable
under Sections 409, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”) as well as Sections 3 and 4 of
The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999
(hereinafter referred as “MPID Act”).
3.

Application is resisted by the Prosecution by filing its say at
Exhibit
No.02.

The
intervention
application
of
first
informant/intervenor – Ketan Ghanshyamprasad Bhat is allowed
vide order dated 12.02.2024 and resisted present application by
filing his say at Exhibit No.05.
4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
Informant and his friend have invested certain amount with
the Company of applicant namely Raj Entertainment. They got
acquainted with the partner of Raj Entertainment during the
period of December 2019. They were informed by the applicant
and other accused that, the schemes were floated by their
partnership firm which are beneficial and investors will get
attractive returns, for e.g. they get 66 beer bottles for Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) and they sale one beer bottle for
Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven Hundred Fifty only) and earned
Rs.49,500/- (Rupees Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred only)
within one day. They also gave information about various
schemes for the investment and assured for secured repayment.
Accordingly, informant has invested in all the three schemes.
Thereafter, in March 2020, during lock down applicant/
Raghavendra told them that, his pub is closed and also stopped
giving returns of the investment. Then after some days,
:3:
Order on BA No.34/24
Raghvendra, Bhaktanand and Manjunath established another
Company named and style as M/s. Shriraj Winery LLP and started
giving refund to the investors of Raj Entertainment. They asked
informant to invest in M/s. Shriraj Winery LLP. Thereby,
informant has invested the amount in the said FE. He was given
user ID and password for seven different accounts. By login on
the website, informant used to get returns. The said Company
used to arrange meeting in different 5 Star hotels in which
Raghvendra, Bhaktanana and Manjunath used to be present as an
authority holder of the Company and induced investors to invest
in different schemes. In such circumstances, since 15.09.2021
informant did not get returns of his investment. He was given
evasive answers and for one or other reason, accused denied
returns to him. Thereby, informant approached the police station
and lodged report that, the applicant and other accused duped
him for the amount of Rs.5,09,645/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Nine
Thousand Six Hundred Forty Five only). They have also duped
near about 600 investors and committed a financial scam of
about Rs.14 Crores. Accordingly, report came be lodged against
the applicant and other accused on 30.05.2022.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the Applicant, Ld. SPP for the
Prosecution, Investigating Officer and Ld. Advocate for the first
informant / intervenor.

6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant
has been falsely implicated on the basis of insufficient material
and suppression of material facts. First informant and his wife
received amount to the tune of Rs.18,87,535/-(Rupees Eighteen
:4:
Order on BA No.34/24
Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Five only)
against the investment of Rs.5,09,645/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Nine
Thousand Six Hundred Forty Five only). Claim of Rs.14 Crores is
vague, instead list of 653 investors reflects the amount aggregates
to Rs.11,29,28,900/- (Rupees Eleven Crores Twenty Nine Lakhs
Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred only). Due to Covid-19
pandemic / lock down, business activities of the Company came
to a standstill. Immediately, applicant and his partners refunded
full principal amounts to each and every investors, without
waiting maturity date of any scheme. Most of the investors have
been paid amount with accumulated interest and no monitory
loss has been caused to them. As per the case of Investigating
Agency final amount is to be paid on completion of either 350 or
450 days depending upon the scheme. Even if it is taken on its
face value the amount of Rs.40 to 50 Lakhs would be liable for
repayment that would be the matter of accounts.
7.

It is further argued that partner of the applicant Mr.
Manjunath handed over details of all 653 investors and the
amount mentioned against each one of them till the final
maturity value of the scheme. The said Manjunath is released on
anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay. One Vitthal Shinde has withdrawn his complaint against
the applicant and others. The applicant has expressed his
willingness to pay legitimate dues if any of the investors. Ld.
Advocate for the applicant produced bunch of document
including account statements to show that substantial amount is
paid to the investors and that the applicant had no intention to
deceive the investors. Prima facie case is not made out against the
:5:
Order on BA No.34/24
applicant and accused. Other accused namely Manjunath is
already released on anticipatory bail. This applicant has cooperated the investigation and thereby most of the investigation
is completed. Physical custody of the applicant is no more
required. On these amongst ground Ld. Advocate for the
applicant submitted that the applicant be released on bail.
8.

Per contra, Ld. SPP and the Ld. Advocate for the intervenor
objected the bail application on the ground that the prima facie
concern of the applicant with the alleged offence is established by
the prosecution. He had induced investors and accepted the
amounts from them. Applicant is a Director / partner of Raj
Entertainment Company. The said Company has in all 9 accounts
and had transactions to the tune of more than Rs.29 Crores.
Investigating Agency requires to verify all these accounts,
websites run by the Company and other businesses of applicant
and other accused. It is submitted that as per the contention of
accused that amounts / returns were given to the investors but
the same is to be verified. Assets of the applicant is to be find out
and therefore, it is submitted that the application be rejected.
Reasons –
9.

Prima facie concern of the applicant with alleged offence is
clear. Admittedly, he is one of the Director of Raj Entertainment
Company. Applicant has produced copies of documents, bank
statements with the submission that, amount of Rs.18,87,535/- is
paid to the first informant which is more than his investment. It is
pointed out that the applicant and his partners immediately
refunded full principal amount to the investors without waiting
:6:
Order on BA No.34/24
for maturity date. Letter (Exh.-B) issued to the investors for
clearance of his amount and then he has withdrawn the
complaint. It is emphasized that the co-accused had given an
affidavit to the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
listing all his properties and thereby, Investigating Agency has
taken a steps for attaching the same. It is a property of Company
and not an individual property. Thus, money trail is completed
and return of investment to the investors is rest assured.
10.

The prosecution raised an objection that it has to verified all
these aspects. In that regard record reflects that all the
documents, bank statements along with the property given by
other accused is with prosecution for due verification. Only for
that purpose, it is not necessary to languish the applicant behind
bar. Considering MoU with the first informant and other investors
and that they have repaid the dues, co-accused, who is standing
at par with applicant, is released on anticipatory bail by the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Therefore, on the
ground of parity applicant is entitled for the relief claimed.

11.

It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the applicant
that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is ready to
abide any condition on grant of bail. Considering all these aspects
this Court is of the view that the application filed by the applicant
is to be allowed with certain conditions. Hence, the following
order :ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.34 of 2024 is hereby allowed and
disposed of.

:7:
Order on BA No.34/24
2. The applicant Raghavendra D. S/o Shri Devendrappa is hereby
released on bail in connection with C.R. No.95 of 2022 is
registered with EOW, Unit VIII, Mumbai (C.R. No.729 of 2022
registered with Malad Police Station) against the present
Applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 3
and 4 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act,
1999 on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only) with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount.

3. The Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of Rs.

1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for a period of two months.

4. The applicant shall surrender his passport before the investigating
officer within a period of one week of his release.

5. That the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation
by the Investigating Officer as and when required, under written
intimation.

6. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of
this Court.

7. The Applicant shall not alienate any movable and immovable
property in his name or in the name of his wife/children or any
other person, without permission of this Court.

8. The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or
pressurize the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

9. The Applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential
address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated,
in case there is any change.

10. The Applicant shall attend the dates of trial regularly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
Date: 17/02/2024
Mumbai
sd/(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
Dictated directly on computer: 17/02/2024
Signed by HHJ on
: 17/02/2024
:8:
Order on BA No.34/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
20.02.2024 at 10.28 a.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Ms. R. D. Tari
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. A. U. Kadam
C.R. 07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
17.02.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
17.02.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
20.02.2024