1
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER
M.P.I.D. ACT
AT
THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT,
MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION No.40 OF 2015.
Rakesh Pratep Shet,
Age 28 years,Occu. Service,
R/o Maharashtra Chawl No.2, Room No.4,
Gate No.7, Near St. Paul School,
Malvani, MaladнW, Mumbai н 95.
Е.

Applicant.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
at the instance of Malwani Police Station
in C.R.No.329 of 2014.

Е
Respondent.

Adv. Ashok Sutrale for Applicant.
SPP Adv. Kanojia for State.
Coram : His Honour Judge
D.P. Surana.
Dated : 21st July, 2015.
ORAL ORDER
Applicant Rakesh Pratep Shet, who was came to be arrested
on 12/12/2014 in C.R. No.329/2014 of Malwani Police station for
the offence punishable u/sec.420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 170,
120нB r/w sec.34 of the I.P. Code and sec.3 of the Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments)
Act, 1999, by this application u/sec.439 r/w sec.437 the Cr.P.C. is
seeking bail.

2
2.

It is the case of prosecution that, present accused
applicant Rakesh and Abdul Khan were searching for the persons
in need of flats in Mumbai. Such persons (victims) were induced
that they would be given MHADA flats at concessional rates. That
such persons were then taken to Amir Imran Academy situated at
Sai Sadan Building, Shop no.3/4/5 MHADA, Malwani, Malad (W),
Mumbaiн95, where coнaccused Amir Khan, Imran Khan and
Sarfaraj Khan used to give them further false representation of
providing MHADA Flats contending that, they are having good
relations with MHADA officers. Such persons were shown forge,
false and fabricated documents of MHADA and thereby induce the
victims to deposit their money by showing such documents.
Lateron some more money incashed was extracted from such
victims on the pretext of getting extra FSI. Then such persons from
whom amounts towards MHADA flats were accepted, were taken
to Pramod Kedar Singhania, a coнaccused, in front of MHADA
office. Pramod Kedar Singhania was falsely personated to be a
MHADA officer. Extra amount of Rs.87,000/н incash was again
extracted from such victims, on the false promises of providing
MHADA flats.
It is alleged that the present applicant is also a master mind
main accused in the crime and has induced several investors. He
has directly received the huge amount from the victims and has
transferred some amount to the account of coнaccused and has
misappropriated some amount by withdrawing it time to time inн
cash.

3
3.

Heard Advocate for the applicant. Also heard Ld. SPP
Adv. Kanojia for State. Advocate for applicant submitted that,
applicant is a lecturer. He is a reputed person in the society. That
he himself is a victim who has booked one flat in such false
scheme and has paid substantial amount to the main accused. He
relied on the such false and fabricated MAHDA flat allotment
documents which is in the name of the applicant. He further
submitted that applicant was induced by the main coнaccused who
were known to him, to bring the customers thereby he (applicant)
will get the commission or the concision in the allotment of the
flats. He submitted that, as such, the applicant himself is a victim
and not a culprit.
He
further
submitted
that
applicant
is
sufficiently
interrogated by police. Chargeнsheet is also filed in the crime and
thereby investigation is completed. That no purpose will be served
in keeping the applicant behind the bars.
He further submitted that the amount deposited in the
account of accused was on the instructions of coнaccused and no
amount is utilized by the applicant. That applicant has sufficiently
coнoperated in the investigation and there is no possibility of his
absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He
further submitted that applicant will be available for the trial
which will take its own time to start. As such he submitted that
accused be granted bail.
4.

As against this Ld. SPP and assistant IO in one voice
opposed the application contending that, matter is serious. There
4
is prima facie involvement of the applicant as a main accused in
commission of crime. He is one of the main conspirator of the
crime. That investigation is still in progress. That out of 11
accused, 2 are still wanted. At present only around 81 victim
depositors have come forward. Whereas, at the time of
chargesheet, there were only 69 investors. That the total dupted
amount
of 81 investors is around Rs.8,32,43,250/н. That
applicant has directly received huge amount in cash and cheque
from the investors. That there are instances that the amount are
transferred from the bank account to the coнaccused to the bank
account of other coнaccused which shows that crime was
perpetrated by hatching conspiracy.

That in all 10 victim
depositors have specifically stated the role of the applicant. That
the total amount of such 10 victims depositors received by the
accused is around Rs.1,22,23,700/н, which according to I.O. may
increase. As per I.O. investigation of the crime is still under
progress and release of accused will create hindrance in further
investigation.
5.

In reply, the applicant accused denied to have
received such huge amount. According to him he might have
received around Rs.4 + lacs.
6.

After hearing rival contentions, I have perused the
application, reply Exh.2 filed by the I.O., chargesheet papers and
the table given by the I.O. in his say, showing the amount came to
the bank account of the applicant and coнaccused through cheque
5
and cash and the involvement of the applicant accused in the said
crime as stated by the 10 witnesses so far.
7.

No doubt that chargesheet is filed in the alleged crime
but 2 accused are yet to be arrested. I.O. has kept open the
window of further investigation u/s 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. On
perusal of the chargesheet papers, which tallies with the chart
given by the I.O., it is clear that as on the date of filing of
chargesheet 10 investors has alleged involvement of the applicant
in the crime and the payment of huge amount in lakhs to the
applicant and coнaccused. From the chargesheet papers it also
seem that witness has categorically stated that it was the present
applicant who has given them false assurance and accepted
amounts towards allotment of MAHADA flats.
8.

It also seems from the say filed by the I.O. that the
the total amount of Rs.1,22,23,700/н was duped due to the
inducement by the applicant. An amount of Rs.20,000/н each was
found in the 2 seized bank accounts of the applicant accused.
Whereas, huge amount in lacs is alleged to have received to the
applicant which is deposited by the victims by cheque in his bank
account. Other amount in cash is also allege to have received by
the applicant. It is not disputed that huge amount in lacs is
withdrawn by the applicant in case from his bank account time to
time in. Those withdrawal is for Rs.10,000/н to Rs.25,000/н on
various occasions.

6
9.

As per I.O. investigation is still in progress. From
chargesheet papers it is apparently seen that the present accused
in conspiracy with other coнaccused has committed the said fraud
and dupted the hard earning of several investors. This is not the
ordinary case of fraudulent default, wherein depositors seems to
be greedy and invests their amount for and out of their greed to
earn more money. In the city like Mumbai, even the middle class
peoples have their last dream to have their owned shelter. In the
case in hand there is a perнplained design to lured and dupe such
victims in need of shelter by giving them false assurances of
MAHADA flats, knowing that such assurance is false and cannot be
fulfilled.

Such 81 victims only at present have come forward.

There may be other victims too who may be traced out during
further investigation which is in progress. The release of applicant
under above circumstances will definitely hampered the further
investigation.
10.

Applicant himself in his complaint letter dtd.

10/09/2014 to the officer in charge of Malvani police station has
mentioned that Amir Khan was his classmate and Imran Khan was
also known to him. Both the coнaccused are alleged to be the main
master mind of the crime. The applicant is also resident to the
same locality where the main coнaccused are residing. As such, the
possibility that he being one of the coнconspirator cannot, at this
stage, ruled out.
11.

The contention of applicant that, he is a victim and
7
not a culprit cannot be taken into consideration at this stage, as
the 10 witnesses has given specific role to the applicant. Applicant
may have, as a part of conspiracy to save himself, plotted himself
as a victim by preparing or getting prepared the MAHDA flat
allotment letter and like document in his name. The agreement in
the name of the applicant is of August 2011, whereas the victim’s
amount were received by the applicant in the year 2014. Hence
the contention of applicant of he being the culprit can not be
taken into consideration at this stage.

The contention of the
applicant that he is not a beneficiary in the crime can not be
accepted as he has not only received the amounts from the victims
but has also withdrawn the same and used for his own purpose.
Accused was unable to give any explanation of the amount
deposited and withdrawal.
12.

Irrespective of the fact that, chargesheet is filed, a
balance is required to be struck between the magnitude of offence
ramifications of the same and continuance of the investigation and
it is to be seen whether there is possibility of tampering of
prosecution witnesses or availability or non availability of the
applicant. In my view there is strong possibility of tampering with
the prosecution witnesses and evidence, as the case pertains to
fabrication of false documents too. When the applicant is alleged
to have acted in conspiracy with the coнaccused, at present, no
significance can be given to the fact that who fabricated the false
documents. Whereas there are specific allegations of the witnesses
that applicant handed over allotment letter to them. The offences
8
leveled against the applicant prescribed punishment upto life
imprisonment. Apparently investigation seems to be going on
u/sec.173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. Having regard to the said fact and
considering the aspect that the amount was collected on the bogus
and false assurance of providing MAHADA flats to the
investors/victims and they were deceived on the basis of false and
fabricated documents of allotment letters of flats whereas, no such
flats were provided, I am of the view that there is strong prima
facie case made out against the accused and there is ailment of
defection since beginning and there is strong possibility of
tampering of the witnesses by the applicant if, he is released on
bail and hence applicant, who is one of the main accused is not
entitled for the liberty claimed. In the result I proceed to pass
following order.
ORDER
Bail Application stands rejected.
Date 21/07/2015.

(D.P. Surana)
Special Judge, M.P.I.D. Act. &
Addl. Sessions Judge, (C.R. No.36)
City Civil & Sessions Court, At Bombay.

9