Mumbai, October 16, 2024 – Kiran Surendra Sinha, a 52-year-old accountant arrested in connection with an alleged financial fraud at Dhan Suvidha Finance Company, has been granted bail by the Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act. His Honour Judge N.G. Shukla, presiding over Court No. 20, allowed Sinha’s application, expressing dissatisfaction with the “casual approach” of the investigating officer in opposing the bail.
Sinha, a permanent resident of Mahim West, Mumbai, was arrested in Crime No. 76/2024 of DCB CID Unit-XII (originally registered as Crime No. 144 of 2024 at Arey Sub Police Station). He faces charges under Sections 316(2) (Punishment for cheating by personation), 318(4) (Punishment for criminal conspiracy), and 3(5) (Punishment for criminal breach of trust) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS Act), read with Section 66(c) of the Information Technology (IT) Act (Punishment for identity theft) and Section 3 of the MPID Act.
Prosecution’s Allegations
The prosecution’s case, presented by Ld. APP Mrs. Chaitrali Panshikar for the State-EOW, alleged that Sinha was working as an accountant in Dhan Suvidha Finance Company. It was claimed that the proprietor, manager, and other employees, including Sinha, lured investors into depositing Rs. 2,950/- online with the promise of sanctioning loans, which were, in fact, never disbursed. The prosecution specifically alleged that Sinha was taking 15% of the money collected from these investors. The Investigating Officer filed a reply opposing the bail application.
Defense Argues Lack of Dishonest Intent
Mr. Manish Kanojia, the learned advocate for the applicant, argued that Sinha was merely an employee working as an accountant and had no dishonest intention, acting solely on the instructions of Accused No. 1, who is identified as the main culprit and proprietor of Dhan Suvidha Finance.
The defense contended that the police had already obtained sufficient custody of Sinha for interrogation and that his continued detention was unnecessary. It was highlighted that Sinha’s mobile phone, along with computers and laptops from the company’s office, had been seized, implying that all relevant data was secured and there was no risk of tampering. Mr. Kanojia assured the court that his client was ready to cooperate with the investigating agency. He also pointed out that other employees arrested in the same crime had already been released on bail, seeking parity for Sinha.
Court’s Scrutiny and Observations
Judge N.G. Shukla, in his oral order, critically examined the prosecution’s opposition. The court noted that the police’s reply opposing bail did not provide any specific reasons detailing Sinha’s particular role that warranted the rejection of his bail application. The judge observed that “All the reasons given in the application are replica the say filed in bail application of other employees who were arrested in this crime. It shows casual approach of investigation officer in contesting the bail application.”
The court acknowledged that while Sinha was an accountant managing financial affairs, it was “obvious that he was working on the instructions of accused No.1- proprietor of Dhan Suvidha Finance.” The judge further pointed out that the police’s “say does not discloses that what revail in the interrogation of applicant about the amount if any, received from the money of investors to the applicant.”
The court also reasoned that law enforcement could easily obtain bank statements of the applicant to verify any money received from investors. With all electronic devices, including Sinha’s mobile phone, already seized, the possibility of tampering with data was deemed negligible. The court stated that conditions could be imposed on Sinha to provide passwords for email accounts and devices and to ensure his presence during trial.
Crucially, the court granted bail on the ground of parity, noting that “Other accused who were employees in the Company are released on bail.”
Bail Conditions
Accordingly, the court allowed Bail Application No. 825 of 2024, ordering Kiran Surendra Sinha’s release on bail, subject to the following stringent conditions:
- Personal Bond and Surety: Sinha must execute a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount.
- Cash Security: He is permitted to furnish a cash security of Rs. 30,000/- in lieu of surety for a period of four weeks.
- Reporting to Police: He must attend the office of DCB CID unit on October 19, 21, and 23, 2024, between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM, and thereafter, as and when called by written notice from the investigating officer, fully cooperating with the investigation.
- Password Disclosure and Data Integrity: He must provide passwords of email accounts used in the company’s office to the investigating officer and ensure not to change these passwords or tamper with data in his seized mobile phones, laptops, and computers.
- Travel Restriction: He shall not leave India without prior permission of the court.
- Passport Deposit: He must deposit his passport with the investigating officer or file an affidavit if he does not possess one, within two weeks of his release.
- Address and Contact Details: He must submit proof of his residential address and contact mobile numbers, as well as the residential addresses and contact mobile numbers of two close relatives, to the investigating officer within two weeks of his release, and update any changes periodically.
- No Witness Tampering: He shall not threaten or influence any prosecution witnesses or hamper further investigation.
The bail application stands disposed of. This order highlights the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing the prosecution’s arguments and ensuring that grounds for continued detention are substantive, especially when procedural lacunae or claims of parity arise.