1
BA 58н15
BEFORE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT AT
BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, AT MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2015
IN
C.R. NO.181 OF 2015
Shrikant Siddharth Jadhav
Aged: 26 Years, Occupation: Service
Residing at Room situate at Koyna
Society Lalubhai Compound,
Mankhurd, Mumbai.
(in Judicial Custody)
]
]
]
]
]
]…Applicant.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
(at the instance of Mankhurd
Police Station, vide C.R. No.181/2015)
]
]
]…Respondent.

Advocate Niraj for the Applicant.
SPP Advocate Malankar for the Respondent/State.
CORAM :
SPECIAL JUDGE, MPID ACT.
D. P. SURANA (C. R. No.36)
DATED :
26th October, 2015.
ORDER:
1.

This is an application filed under section 439 of Cr.P.c. for
grant of bail to accused Shrikant Siddharth Jadhav, in C.R. No.181 of
2015, under investigation with Mankhurd police station, Mumbai, for the
offences punishable under sections 420 and 406 of I.P. Code and section 3
of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial
2
BA 58н15
Establishments) Act, 1999.
2.

Heard Advocate Niraj for applicant and SPP Advocate
Malankar and IO Ц API Pandey for State. Perused application and say Exh.2
filed by IO.
3.

It is alleged by the prosecution that informant Pramod R. Ram
in his information to Mankhurd police station alleged that accused formed
financial establishment, floated various schemes with assurance of returns
which are commercially not viable and impracticable. That total amount of
Rs.25 lakhs + of around 17 depositors are duped. Whereas, applicant has
received huge amount of cash of Rs.3.30 lakhs and has also purchased
jewellery of around Rs.4.24 lakhs from and out of the deposits received
from the investors. As per prosecution, applicant is one of the main
accused and has also signed on the documents.
4.

Advocate for applicant submitted that initially offence
punishable under section 3 of the MPID Act was not leveled against the
applicant. All the offences prescribed punishment less than 7 years. He
further submitted that, applicant was arrested on 04.09.2015. He was
granted police custody remand till 14.09.2015, as such, he is sufficiently
interrogated and no further investigation from the applicant is necessary.
That applicant was a watchman in the financial establishment. Applicant
has no concern with the said crime. He is falsely implicated. That,
applicant has clean antecedents and allegations are baseless. He further
submitted that applicant is ready to abide by any terms and conditions,
hence, he may granted bail.

3
5.

BA 58н15
As against this, SPP and IO submitted that applicant has
received amount in cash not a single amount was found in his bank
account. 80 forms, 41 filled cards and 11 blank cards were found from the
applicant. The scheme floated by the financial establishment was from the
inception fraudulent scheme floated which intent to deceive the investors.
That applicant was absconding. No property or ornaments were found
from the applicant. He has not coнoperated in the investigation.
Investigation Officer submitted that only 17 investors have approached to
their office claiming fraudulent default of Rs.25.17 crores and around 100
depositors may approach in future, as investigation is in progress.
Investigation Officer further submitted that applicant has incurred huge
expenses in his marriage and his sister’s marriage from and out of amount
of depositors, hence, they requested for rejection of the application filed by
the applicant.
6.

On perusal of the case papers, it is apparent that investigation
is pending. It seems that applicant has not coнoperated with the
investigating agency. Not a single amount or property at the instance of
applicant was seized. There is material to show that applicant purchased
ornaments worth Rs.4.24 lakhs by paying 3.32 lakhs to Annapurna
Jewellers. As per investigating agency, the property was purchased from
and out of the amount received from depositors. Amount in cash is also
alleged to have been received by the applicant through his bank account.
The promises given by financial establishment, as shown by investigation
officer in the chart at page no.4 of his reply (Exh.2), clearly shows that the
promises are commercially not viable. Investigation is in progress. So also,
the claim of applicant that he was watchman seems to be false, as the
4
BA 58н15
scheme was floated in his name, he has signed on several documents for
and on behalf of financial establishment and he seems to be involved in the
business affairs of the financial establishment. There is possibility of
applicant tampering with the witnesses and the crime proceed. Hence, I
am of the view that pending investigation applicant accused against whom
there is prima facie case has made, is not entitle to be released on bail.
Hence, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
Application at this stage stands rejected.
Date 26/10/2015.

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

Order Dictated on : 26/10/2015
Transcribed on
: 27/10/2015
Signed on
: 28/10/2015
УI affirm that the contents of the PDF file order are the same, word to word, as
per the original order.Ф
Name of Steno with post
:н Arun A Mudaliyar
(H.G. Stenographer)
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) :н HHJ Shri. D. P. SURANA (CR 36)
Date of pronouncement of order
:н 26/10/2015
Order signed by the P.O. on
:н 28/10/2015
Order uploaded on
:н 29/10/2015