:1:
Order on BA No.1102/23
MHCC020193572023
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.1102 OF 2023
IN
C.R. No.610 of 2023
Alok Sukhdev Pramanick
]
Age : 43 years, Occ : Service
]
Residing at B/502, Chouhan Empire,
] Applicant/
Amboli Naka, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 058.
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Amboli Police Station)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate P. D. Desai for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
Ld. Advocate Avinash Zodage for Original Complainant/ Intervenor.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 19th March, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused
Alok Sukhdev Pramanick resident of Andheri (W), Mumbai,
under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
grant of regular bail.

2.

A case being C.R. No.610 of 2023 is registered with Amboli
Police Station against the present Applicant for the offence
:2:
Order on BA No.1102/23
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”) as well as Sections 3
and 4 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 Nos.02 & 07. The intervention by the intervenor / original
complainant is allowed vide order dated 18.03.2024.

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
It is the case of prosecution that, since November 2022 to
February 2023, accused induced informant and other investors to
invest in the scheme of ‘Swami Krupa Business Solution Pvt. Ltd.’
(hereinafter referred as “FE”) under the head of gold schemes
and other various schemes with a promise that, they will get good
returns within 30 days. Thereby, investors trusted the applicant
and they have invested huge amounts through informant by
making online transactions. They have also given cash amount to
the tune of Rs.21,51,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Fifty One
Thousand only) to the applicant and 15 gold coins of 10 gm. each
amounting to Rs.8,10,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ten Thousand
only). Thus, they have made total investment to the tune of
Rs.1,06,52,000/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Fifty Two
Thousand only) to the applicant Alok Pramanick. They did not
get any return towards their investments though they have
consistently taken follow up for the same. Finally, they realized
that, the applicant has duped them and he has taken their money
with ill-intention to deceive them to secure unlawful gain. Hence,
the report is lodged.

:3:
5.

Order on BA No.1102/23
Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant, Ld. SPP for the
Prosecution, Investigating Officer and Ld. Advocate for the
original complainant / intervenor.

6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that, applicant has
no concern with the alleged offence. He is the employee/ driver
in the Company/FE. In fact, sister of informant is one of the
Director in the said FE. Role of the informant is also questionable
in the subject matter. Other Directors in the Company are not
arrested. Applicant has attended the police station and his
statement is recorded. Much has been argued about the role
played by the other accused. It is pointed out that there is huge
delay in lodging report. Alleged offence is committed during
01.11.2022 to 28.02.2023 whereas report came to be lodged on
28.07.2023. The said delay is not explained and thereby, veracity
of the prosecution case is in doubt. Though Anticipatory Bail
Application filed by the applicant were rejected, now, there is
change in circumstances that, charge-sheet is filed and thereby,
investigation is completed. There is no proper investigation and
money trail. It is submitted that, the investigating Officer has not
taken a pain to find out whether really an amount goes to the
accused. Further by way of rejoinder, it is submitted that the
Directors of the Company are absconding. Documents produced
on record reflects that there are entries showing return of amount
to the account of investors. Rs.25 Lakhs investment was done
through applicant against which huge amount is returned.
Statement of other investors is not yet recorded. First informant
invested in immovable properties which is not investigated. On
these amongst ground prima facie involvement of the applicant
:4:
Order on BA No.1102/23
with the alleged offence is questioned and thereby, Ld. Advocate
for the applicant submitted that the applicant be released on bail.
7.

Per contra, Ld. SPP objected the bail application on the ground
that, the accused no.1, who is Director of the FE came to be
arrested. Application filed by this applicant for anticipatory bail
were rejected on merit. Prima facie concern of the applicant with
the alleged offence is thus, establish by the prosecution. There is
documentary evidence to show that, the investors have invested
their hard earned money in the FE through applicant. The
Investigating Officer has also submitted that, he has verified the
bank accounts and it is revealed that the investors did not get
anything / return from the account of accused. Investigation
under Section 173(8) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
in progress. Thus, Ld. SPP submitted that, involvement of the
applicant in alleged serious economic offence is shown by the
prosecution and thereby his bail application be rejected.
Reasons
8.

On perusal of record it reveals that, there are specific
averments in the report that, the investors including informant
have invested money through the applicant, who was working as
a driver in the FE. Apparently, they were induced by Directors of
the FE. But during the course of transaction, applicant played an
active role to induce them to invest through him by alluring them
that being employee of the FE, he is getting discount in the
invested amount and that they will get good returns, if they will
invest the amount through him. Accordingly, by trusting the
applicant investors have transferred various amount through the
:5:
Order on BA No.1102/23
applicant. Documents collected during the investigation reflects
that, huge amount is credited to the account of applicant and the
same is not returned to the investors. Investigating Officer has
pointed out that, money trail is to be taken for the amount
transferred to the account of applicant.
9.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant criticized the investigation
with the submission that, Investigating Officer has not verified
the documents to investigate the matter in its true sense. In
support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Nikhil
Ashokrao Waghamare and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.,
wherein it is observed that, ‘ there is no provision of law which
precludes the Investigating Officer to go through the material, if
he finds it relevant and germane to arrive at the truth. ’ The law is
settled and the same cannot be disputed. However, it has no
direct concern with the merits of the case that, the prima facie
concern of the applicant with alleged serious offence is shown by
the prosecution on the basis of documentary evidence collected
during the course of investigation and further investigation is
going on.
10.

Prima facie concern of the applicant with the alleged huge
financial scam / offence is established. Investigation is not yet
fully completed. Recovery is yet to be done. Property shown by
the applicant is acquired by the applicant through the funds of FE
itself. That cannot be taken as recovery of the investments by the
investors. It is well settled legal preposition that, “the economic
offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss
:6:
Order on BA No.1102/23
of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as
grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole
and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the
country.”
11.

Prima facie concern of the applicant with the alleged serious
economic offence is clear. It reveals that he has duped many
investors for unlawful gain. Other accused / Director of the said
FE came to be arrested and others are yet to be apprehended.
Investigation of the offence is not based on only documentary
evidence and the same is quite complicated one. Therefore, this
Court is of the considered view that the applicant is not entitle for
the relief claimed. Hence, the order :
ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.1102 of 2023 filed by the
Applicant Alok Sukhdev Pramanick in connection with C.R.
No.610 of 2023 is registered with Amboli Police Station against
the present Applicant for the offence punishable under Sections
406, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections
3 and 4 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors
Act, 1999 is hereby rejected.

2. The present Bail Application No.1102 of 2023 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)

Date: 19/03/2024
Mumbai
sd/(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
Dictated directly on computer: 19/03/2024
Signed by HHJ on
: 19/03/2024
:7:
Order on BA No.1102/23
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
21.03.2024 at 11.29 a.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
19.03.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
19.03.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
21.03.2024