On November 3, 2015, the Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act at the Bombay City Civil & Sessions Court rejected the bail application of 45-year-old businessman Sanjay Narayan Jangam in connection with C.R. No. 329 of 2014 registered at Malwani Police Station. The applicant had been arrested on February 27, 2015, and faced charges under IPC Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 170, 34, and 120-B, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act.
According to the prosecution, the accused—along with co-accused Rakesh Seth, Abdul Khan, Amir Khan, Imran Khan, and Sarfaraj Khan—allegedly lured individuals into believing they could secure MHADA flats at concessional rates. Victims were taken to a center in Malwani, where forged documents were shown and false representations made under the pretense of having influence with MHADA officials. Some victims were even taken to the MHADA office, where another co-accused impersonated an official and extracted additional sums. It is alleged that Sanjay Jangam played an active role by directly inducing five investors and duping them of approximately ₹43.2 lakhs, with significant funds deposited into his account.
During the hearing, Advocate Ashish Dubey, representing Jangam, argued that his client acted merely as a commission agent and had remitted most of the received amount to the main accused, retaining only ₹20,000 as commission. He claimed the dishonouring of cheques issued by co-accused proved Jangam’s bona fide intent to recover the funds. He further argued that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and Jangam had no criminal antecedents or pending custodial interrogation. The defense cited several precedents including Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat and Amiya Kumar Gourishankar Jha v. State of Maharashtra to support the plea for bail.
However, the prosecution and investigating officer strongly opposed the application, citing the serious nature of the offense and Jangam’s alleged active involvement from the beginning. They argued that Jangam worked in concert with the main accused to defraud victims under a pre-planned conspiracy. The court noted that all five victims had specifically named Jangam and that the conspiracy involved not just deception but a calculated modus operandi to cheat vulnerable individuals by falsely promising them housing.
Judge D.P. Surana held that the applicant’s role could not be minimized merely because co-accused were granted bail. Observing that a prima facie case of fraud and conspiracy was clearly made out against Jangam, and that the offense was not a simple case of business default but a serious and organized fraud, the court denied bail. Accordingly, the application was rejected.
Let me know if you’d like a Hindi version or a condensed summary.