:1:
Order on BA No.124/24
MHCC020025442024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.124 OF 2024
IN
C.R. No.599 of 2023
Shyam Shankar Ram Pratap Maurya
Age : 57 years, Occ : Business
Residing at A-701, Saket Apartment,
Plot No. 467, Kokani Pada Road,
Behind B.M.C. School, Kurar Village,
Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097.

]
]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Kurar Village Police Station)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Jivaraj S. Andhale for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Ms. Chaitrali Panshikar for the State/ Respondent.
Ld. Advocate Gaurav Tiwari for Intervenor- Mr. Vinayak Aba Kumbhar.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 7th March, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused
Shyam Shankar Ram Pratap Maurya resident of Malad (E),
Mumbai, under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 for grant of regular bail.

:2:
2.

Order on BA No.124/24
A case being C.R. No.599 of 2023 is registered with Kurar
Village Police 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
Section 3 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.05. The intervention application (Exhibit No.3) of
intervenor – Mr. Vinayak Aba Kumbhar is allowed vide order
dated 14.02.2024 and filed reply cum written submissions at
Exhibit No.4.

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
It is a case of prosecution that, since 2011 to June 2023,
informant and other members have invested substantial amount
with Shyam Co-operative Credit Society Ld. at the instance of
applicant / accused no.2. He has used the amount for his own
profit and thereby misappropriated funds, cheated / deceived
investors for unlawful gain.
5.

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

6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that, dispute is
related to banking transaction. Wife of applicant is expired and
thereby for some period the said bank was closed. Investors got
panicked and they proceeded to lodged report. Since long
:3:
Order on BA No.124/24
transaction of bank was smooth and there was no complaint.
Applicant never intended to cheat the investors. Investigating
Agency have seized three accounts of the applicant. Arrest of
other accused would not be a ground to detain applicant behind
bar. He is ready to return the amounts of investors in
installments. Therefore, applicant is entitled for grant of bail.
7.

Per contra, Ld. SPP and the Ld. Advocate for the intervenor
submitted in one tune that, the offence is registered on
06.10.2023. Applicant came to be arrested on 27.01.2024. He
was absconding. Other members of the society are his near
relatives. They all are beneficiaries. Since 3-4 years amount is
pending. All investors belongs to poor financial background. They
are small scale traders. Applicant have issued cheques to return
the amounts to investors. But the same were not honoured. More
than 12 criminal cases are pending to that effect under Section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the applicant.
Investigation is in progress. There is possibility that the number
of investors and amount involved would increase. In such
circumstances, if the applicant would be released on bail, he may
tamper with prosecution evidence. Hence, it is submitted that the
application filed by the applicant be rejected.
Reasons –
8.

On perusal of record it reveals that prima facie involvement
of the applicant with the alleged offence is no more in doubt.
Huge public fund is involved. It seems that the applicant has
targeted small scale traders who belongs to poor financial
background. Their hard earned money is stuck. Moreover, it is
:4:
Order on BA No.124/24
shown by the prosecution that the applicant has issued a cheque
to them which were not honoured. Thus, intentional act on part
of applicant is prima facie established. Conduct of the applicant is
also relevant to take note of. He was absconding. Investigation in
the matter is in progress. Other accused are to be apprehended.
In such circumstances, if the applicant would released on bail,
there is every possibility that he may tamper with the prosecution
evidence or flee away from justice. Considering all these aspects,
this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitle for the
relief claimed. Hence, the order :
ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.124 of 2024 filed by the
Applicant Shyam Shankar Ram Pratap Maurya in connection with
C.R. No.599 of 2023 is registered with Kurar Village 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 Section 3 of The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 is hereby rejected.

2. The present Bail Application No.124 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)

Date: 07/03/2024
Mumbai
sd/(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
Dictated directly on computer: 07/03/2024
Signed by HHJ on
: 07/03/2024
:5:
Order on BA No.124/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
12.03.2024 at 4.41 p.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. No.07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
07.03.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
07.03.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
12.03.2024