1
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
AT BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSION COURT, MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION No.32 OF 2015.
IN
MPID CASE NO. 9 OF 2005
Sitaram Shetty @ Shashi.

…
Applicant.
Orig. Accused no.4.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
Through Sr. Police Inspector,
MIDC Police Station, Mumbai.

…
Respondents.
Orig. Complainant.

Appearance:
Adv. Bijlani for Applicant.
Ld. SPP Adv. Kanojia for the State.
Coram : HHJ D.P. Surana,
Special Judge, M.P.I.D. Act. (C.R. No.36)
Dated : 07/05/2015.
ORAL ORDER
1.

Applicant, who was declared as a proclaimed offender in
MPID Case No.9/2005 arising out of C.R.No.373/2004 of MPID Police
Station, Mumbai and who surrender before this designated court on
09/03/2015 and since then is in custody, is now seeking bail under
section 439 r/w sec.437 of the Cr.P.C.
2.

It is the case of prosecution that applicant was director of
the financial establishment “M/s.Subhadra Capital and Finance Pvt.
Ltd.” That applicant along with 3 Directors of the financial
establishment committed fraudulent default of investor’s amount of
Rs.37,81,111/­. The said amount of deposit was received by the
2
applicant and the financial establishment by giving commercially not
practicable and non viable promises of returning double the amount
invested within 4 and half years.
3.

Heard Adv. Shaine for applicant. He submitted that
applicant is suffering from Jaundice. He further submitted that
chargesheet is already filed. Trial has already begun. After
proclamation order was passed, the applicant surrendered before the
court. His role is similar to the role of the other three co­accused who
are already on bail. That due to threats of the investors applicant was
shifted to Pune and meanwhile met with an accident with injury to his
head, hip and leg. That because of some leg problem he could not
move hence people shifted him to Bangalore. He further submitted
that when applicant came to know about the order of proclamation
issued against him, he himself surrendered before this court. He
submitted that applicant is aged about 56 years and no purpose will
be served in keeping him behind the bars. He submitted that applicant
is ready to abide by all terms and conditions.
4..

As against this the Ld SPP submitted that the applicant
was one of the Director of the financial establishment, who duped
around 50 Lakhs of around 36 investors. Since last 10 years he was
wanted accused. Only when he was declared as proclaimed offender,
to save his property being attached under section 83 of Cr.P.C., he
surrendered himself. That the possibility of applicant will again
abscond and flee away from justice cannot be ruled out. Hence, she
prayed for rejection of the application.
5.

The role of present applicant is similar to that of other co
accused who were arrested and granted bail. I.O. has filed
supplementary chargesheet against the present applicant too. Two
3
properties of the present applicant, one flat and one gala, are also
secured in the said crime. Though repeatedly asked to jail authorities,
they failed to produce the medical papers showing the physical and
medical condition of the applicant. As such the contention of applicant
that he being suffering from Jaundice remain undisputed. The act on
the part on the applicant to surrender before this designated court
itself shows his bonafide attempts and his intention to remain present
during the further trial. There is no material on record to suggest that
during filing of the chargesheet applicant was intimated/informed.
Applicant is behind the bars since 09/03/2015. No purpose will be
served in continuing him behind bars. To have a check on the
applicant, so as to avoid the possibility of his further abscondance, as
suspected by the prosecution, strict conditions can be imposed on him
while releasing him on bail. As such, I am of the view that applicant is
entitled to be released on bail. In the result I proceed to pass following
order.
ORDER
1.

Application is allowed.

2.

Applicant is order to be released on bail in C.R.No.

373/2004 of MIDC Police Station, Mumbai for the offence p/u/sec.
420 r/w 34 of the I.P.Code and sec.3 of the MPID Act, on his
furnishing PB of Rs. 1 Lakh with one or more sureties to make up the
like amount with conditions that :
­Applicant shall mark his presence with I.O. at concern
police station on every first Sunday between 10 am to 1 pm till further
orders.
­Applicant shall not dispose off in any manner the secured
property in the crime.

4
­Applicant shall not miss a single date of the court
proceeding in MPID Case NO. 9/2005 unless exempted.
­Applicant shall not leave Mumbai without the permission
of this designated Court.

Dtd. 07/05/2015.

(D.P. Surana)
Special Judge, M.P.I.D. Act. &
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
At Bombay.

5
6