1
BEFORE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT AT
BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, AT MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION No.51 OF 2015.
IN
C.R.NO.33 OF 2015
IN
R.A.NO.21 OF 2015.
Salman Firoz Rizvi,
Е
Applicant/Accused.

Е
Respondent.

V/s.
1.The Senior Inspector of Police.
2.The State of Maharashtra.
Through
Economic Offence Wing
Unit III, Mumbai.

Appearance :
Adv. Rizwan Merchant 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.

That coн
accused Akter Jaipuri, Adil Jaipuri, Naseer Jaipuri, Leena Paul and
m/acc. Shekar hatched conspiracy and floated several schemes
through their Financial Establishment УKind Group of IndiaФ.
Applicant Salman Firoz Rizvi was the 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
3
they (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 received by the accused and his Financial
Establishment was 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. He has also given false
information about the scheme and the financial establishment
whereas, he was aware that there is no business at all run by the
accused or the financial establishment. That he fabricated false
documents for the purpose of cheating investors. That he
procured original documents from the depositors with intent to
causing disappearance of evidence of the offence. That he was
about to abscond. That several documents seized in the crime
bears signature of the applicant. That he was actively involved in
perpetrating the crime and was incharge of the day to day
business affairs of the financial establishment.

4
3.

Heard Adv. Merchant 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.

Adv. Merchant submitted that applicant was came to
be arrested on 01/06/2015. He was sufficiently interrogated
under police custody remained till 13/06/2015. 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. Applicant has no
criminal antecedent. That he being the employee of the financial
establishment was bound to obey the directions of his master i.e.
coнaccused. That not a single pie has come to his pocket. Hence,
he submitted that applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Adv. Merchant further submitted that the coнaccused is
about to give the undertaking to repay the amount of the
depositors. That the I.O. has also identified the property of coн
accused. That the 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 coнaccused
has misappropriated the amount for their own use, enjoyment and
luxury. That 9 costly 4 wheeler vehicles, one motor cycle and other
5
valuables are also seized from the coнaccused. He along with coн
accused 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 undertaking and proposal given by
coнaccused is ambiguous and misleading, which cannot be is said
to be bonafide 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 filed by the I.O. and the offers given by the coн
accused.
7.

Chargeнsheet is already filed in the present matter.

Most of the investigation is completed. Applicant is sufficiently
interrogated. During the juducial custody of applicant accused no
application was filed by the I.O. that he wants to interrogate the
applicant.
8.

No doubt that there are allegations against the
applicant of inducing depositors, cheating by personation and
signing on the documents etc., but there is no document to show
that a single amount has came to him. All the valuable articles
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
6
record which suggests that it was the applicant who used the
heard earnings of the depositors for his luxury or enjoyment.
9.

Applicant is alleged to be a General Manager in the
financial establishment. That means he was an employee of the
financial establishment. It seems that neither bank account nor
any property of applicant was secured in the crime. On perusal of
few statement from the chargeнsheet it seems that except enticing,
giving false information and signing the documents, no major role
is attributed to the applicant. A employee is bound to follow the
directions of his master hence mare putting signatures on the
documents as an employee doesn’t mean that the applicant was
the beneficiary of the crime proceeds. He may be incharge of the
business affairs of the financial establishment but he being not a
beneficiary cannot be denied bail. His role can be seen at the time
of trial. Whereas, there is no need to keep him behind the bars.
There is nothing to show that amount came to his pocket or he
misappropriated the said amount for his own use. On the perusal
of the final report u/sec.173 of Cr.P.C. it also seems that the main
accused is Shekar who misappropriated the amount for his own
use, luxury and enjoyment and not the present applicant.
10.

The residence of applicant is shown by the I.O at
Mumbai itself. The family of applicant is also 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. To have a check on the applicant to avoid tampering
7
of witnesses or his feeling away from the justice suitable
conditions can be imposed.
11.

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. No criminal
antecedent of applicant is shown by the I.O. The role attributed to
the present applicant is limited and lesser to the role played by
other coнaccused. 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.
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
8
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.