1
BEFORE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT AT
BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, AT MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION No.48 OF 2015.
IN
C.R.NO.33 OF 2015
IN
R.A.NO.21 OF 2015.
Shekar Chandrashekar.

Е Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Economic Offence Wing
Unit III, Mumbai.

Е
Respondent.

Appearance :
Adv. Snehal for the Applicant.
SPP Adv. Kanojia for the State.
Coram : His Honour Judge
D.P. Surana.
Dated : 1st August 2015.
ORAL ORDER
This is an application u/sec.439 of the Cr.P.C., whereby
applicant, who was came to be arrested on 29/05/2015, 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 Shekar
Chandrashekar is the main accused. Present applicant and other 3
accused Akthar Jaipuri, Adil Jaipuri and Nasir Jaipuri 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. That 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
3
default of the amount of depositors. It is further alleged by the
prosecution that amount so collected was by deceiving the
depositors.
It is alleged against the applicant that he was the master mind
behind the crime. Severally branded clothes, male female foot wears,
purses, ladies tops, goggles, iнpad, T.V. sets, DVD’s, costly watches,
perfumes, jeweleries, etc., were seized from the residence of the
applicant and his live in partner Leena Paul н an coнaccused.
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
(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.,
4
were seized. The office premises was also taken by them on rent. It
is further alleged against the applicant that he deposited an amount
of around Rs.30 Lakhs in the bank account of his live in partner
Leena Paul, which she used for the purchase of valuable articles. It is
further alleged that bogus documents to defraud the investors were
prepared.

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.

Adv. Shetty submitted that applicant was came to be
arrested on 29/05/2015. He was sufficiently interrogated under
police custody remained till 12/06/2015. 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
all the offence levelled against the applicant prescribes punishment
upto 7 years and hence accused applicant is entitled to be released on
bail. He further submitted that the applicant was never convicted.

5
Adv. Shetty further submitted that the applicant will repay the
entire amount of the depositors within the period of 3 months of his
release. That the coнaccused Akhtar Jaipuri has 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 applicant
repays all the dues. 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 applicant fail 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 property
and in the case depositors are not settled by the applicant the said
property can be auctioned or sold. He submitted that wife of accused
Akhtar Jaipuri namely Zara Ali Jaipuri has also made statement
6
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 applicant defaults the repayment of the amount
of depositors. Adv. Shetty submitted that applicant has filed the
documents showing the place of his residence, and hence, he prayed
for release of applicant 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 is the
person who hass induced the depositors to deposit their amount. The
duped
depositors
are
poor
persons.

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 applicant accused. That applicant has no
residential proof. The office and residence of applicant at Mumbai is
also on rent. He along with coнaccused was about to abscond and
hence, there is possibility of his absconding. That there are several
cases against applicant in various courts including Chennai, Delhi,
7
Bangalore. 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 coнaccused Akthar Jaipuri is 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 whereas, the total number of
investors duped amount is around Rs.19 Crores. He submitted that,
there is no business or property with applicant, as such, there is no
possibility of repayment by the accused to the investors. That only for
obtaining bail, false under taking is given by the applicant. I.O.
submitted that undertaking is also ambiguous wherein, failure of
applicant to pay the amount within 3 months, property is given by
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
8
affidavit given by accused applicant and coнaccused Akhtar Jaipuri
(kept in BA 49/2015 filed by Akhtar Jaipuri).

7.

Though coнaccused (accused no.2 to 5) are granted bail,
the case of present applicant is entirely different from the case of
other coнaccused. On perusal of final report u/sec.173 of the Cr.P.C.,
it is apparently seen that applicant is the master mind behind the
crime. He has utilized the amount of depositors for his amusement,
enjoyment and his luxurious. All most investors / depositors have
stated in their statement to police that it was the present applicant
who falsely personated himself to be MLA and enticed them and
duped their hard earning. The undertaking given by the present
applicant to repay the amount within 3 months cannot be taken into
consideration as a bonafide on the part of applicant, as it seems to be
again a false promise, because there is no business of the applicant,
where from he can pay the amount to the depositors in three months.

8.

On perusal of the reply (Exh.3) filed by the prosecution
it is apparent that there are in all other 15 cases registered against
9
the applicant. The Chart of the said cases are given below.

Name of Police
Station
C.R. No. & Sec. of Law
Stage of case
1 Chetpet P.S. Chennai
CR No.309/2010 u/s.419,
Under
420 I.P. Code
Investigation
2 Chetpet P.S. Chennai
CR No.310/2010 u/s.419,
Under
420 I.P. Code
Investigation
3 Chetpet P.S. Chennai
CR No.311/2010 u/s.419,
Under
420 I.P. Code
Investigation
4 Oomachikulam
Madurai Rural
5 Coimbotore CCB
P.S. CR No.436/2010 u/s.294B, Pending Trial
307, 420 I.P. Code
CR No.09/2011 u/s.420,
Under
170 I.P. Code
Investigation
6 Vidahan Chouda P.S., CR No.24/2011 u/s.420,
Bangalore City,
419 I.P. Code
Pending
Trial.

7 Vidahan Chouda P.S., CR No.27/2011 u/s.419,
Bangalore City,
420 I.P. Code
Pending
Trial.

8 Koramangala
Bangalore
P.S. CR No.39/2009 u/s.341,
506, 420 r/w 34 I.P. Code
Pending
Trial.

9 Byappanahalli
Bangalore
P.S. CR No.89/2009
I.P. Code
u/s.420
Pending
Trial.

10 Byappanahalli
Bangalore
P.S. CR No.90/2009
I.P. Code
u/s.420
Pending
Trial.

11 Hulimavu
Bangalore
P.S. CR No.156/2007 u/s.468,
471, 420, 506 I.P. Code
Pending
Trial.

12 Cubban Park
Bangalore
P.S. CR No.82/2011 u/s.419,
420 I.P. Code
Pending
Trial.

13 CBI, BS & FC Unit, RC/6(E), 2014/CBI/BS &
Bangalore
FC/BLR/dt.05/06/2014
Pending
Trial.

10
(Canara Bank Cheating)
CCB Cyber Crime,
14 Chennai.
15 CCB Cyber
Chennai
9.

CR No.24/2013 u/s.406,
419, 420, 120 B I.P. Code
Pending
Trial.

Crime, CR NO.122/2013 u/s.406,
419, 420, 120 B I.P. Code
r/w s.66 (D) of I.T. Act.

Pending
Trial.

From the list of cases registered against the applicant it
is apparent that since from 2009 to 2015 applicant is indulged in like
activities. The institution of cases against the applicant is not denied
by him. It seems that after seeking bail from one office, applicant
utilized the said bail order as a license for him to defraud and cheat
others. Hence, this bail order cannot be a license for the applicant to
again defraud or cheat others and then pay the amount to the
investors of the present case.
10.

No immovable property of applicant was found. No bank
accounts of applicant was found. On the contrary several costly
vehicles and articles were found from the house search panchnama
of the applicant accused. Applicant also allowed his partner (accused
no.2 Leena Paul) to make expenses for her luxury and enjoyment. It
is apparent that the entire game plan in perpetrating the crime was
11
of the applicant and he was the key person. He personated himself to
be MLA. I.O. submitted that he also personated himself to be an
officer of Bangalore development authority.
11.

Applicant has not used the amount of depositors for any
business purpose of thereby suffered business loss but has
squandered the money of small investors, that too to such an extend
that no substantive amount out of 19 Crores was found either from
his bank account or else were. Vehicles or articles purchased by the
applicant for his luxury will not fetch much value, as those are used
articles.
12.

So also, as per the I.O., applicant is not appearing in the
other cases and warrant is issued against him. There is no permanent
residence of applicant at Mumbai. The flat or his office are rented. It
is alleged that applicant/accused was about to flee away. As such,
having regard to the role played by applicant, he being main accused
and looking at his criminal antecedents, I am not incline to grant
liberty in favour of the applicant. As such I proceed to pass following
order.

12
ORDER
Application stands rejected.

Date 01/08/2015.

(D.P. Surana)
Spl. Judge, MPID Act &
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai.