Mumbai, July 15, 2023 (Gr. Bombay Special Court): The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, situated at the City Civil & Sessions Court in Mumbai, has rejected the regular bail application of Naresh Dhondiram Kadam, a businessman accused in a fraud case involving Shubharambh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha.
The order, dated July 15, 2023, was passed by His Honour Judge Shri S. B. Joshi in Court Room No. 7, addressing Bail Application No. 539 of 2023. Kadam was booked under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code,1 1860, and Section 3 of the MPID Act, 1999, in connection with Crime No. 149 of 2021 registered at Ghatkopar Police Station.
Prosecution’s Case:
The prosecution’s case, based on a complaint by Rajesh Shankar Gavhane, alleged that in 2018, the informant needed ₹13,00,000 for house renovation and approached the Directors of Shubharambh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, including the applicant, Naresh Dhondiram Kadam. Despite assurances of interest on deposits and renewal of matured FDRs, the informant did not receive the required sum. In October 2017, the Patsanstha’s office was found closed. The Directors allegedly assured him of a refund and a change of office location, but there was no response. The informant learned that the deposited funds, amounting to ₹29,40,000 deposited between September and October 2016, had been misappropriated.
Applicant’s Plea for Bail:
The applicant, Naresh Dhondiram Kadam, denied all allegations. He claimed to be merely a Junior Officer or agent for the Co-operative Bank, not significantly involved with the Patsanstha, and his duty was only to advertise loan availability. He pointed to a 5-year delay in filing the FIR and stated he had cooperated with the police in 2022 whenever called, never attempting to escape. He argued his role was minor compared to other accused who had been granted bail, he had no criminal antecedents, nothing was left to be recovered from him, and he was ready to abide by any conditions. He sought bail on merits and parity.
Prosecution’s Strong Opposition:
The Prosecution and Investigating Officer jointly opposed the application, stating Kadam was a main accused who, along with others, had not repaid outstanding loans. Investigation revealed misappropriation of deposited sums and illegal use of funds, causing cheating to the complainant and others. Another co-accused, Ramdas Shedge, allegedly stated on a stamp paper that Kadam had caused cheating. Considering the serious allegations and large amount involved, the prosecution argued that Kadam’s release could lead to tampering with investigation and threatening the informant, and he might help other wanted accused evade arrest.
Court’s Reasoning for Rejecting Bail:
His Honour Judge Shri S. B. Joshi framed two points for determination: whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., and the subsequent order.
While the applicant’s counsel argued for bail based on the release of other accused and delays in filing the FIR, the Ld. SPP countered that the charge sheet had been filed against Kadam, raising concerns about tampering and flight risk.
Upon reviewing the Investigating Officer’s reply, the court noted that Kadam, as a Director of the Patsanstha, had allegedly shown ₹8,50,000 in his name without informing other Directors. The Account Auditor’s statement indicated this sum was shown as a Property Mortgage Loan, suggesting misappropriation, although no separate complaint was lodged for this. The court found that Kadam had prima facie induced the informant with false promises of high returns, indicating mala fide intention. The court also noted that while some accused were granted bail, the specific role attributed to Kadam did not warrant parity.
The court concluded that Kadam had not made out a case for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The Order:
His Honour Judge Shri S. B. Joshi passed the following order:
- The present Bail Application No. 539 of 2023 is hereby rejected.
- Respondent/IO to take note of this order.
- The present Bail Application No. 539 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly.
The rejection of bail underscores the court’s consideration of the specific role attributed to the applicant in the alleged fraud and the potential for further obstruction of justice, despite the bail granted to some other accused.