:1:
Order on BA No.105/24
MHCC020007132024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.105 OF 2024
IN
C.R. No.157 of 2022
Kinner Kanu Nayak
Age : 54 years, Occ : Business
Residing at Room No.303 & 403,
Poonam Heights, JVPD, Vile Parle, Mumbai.

]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through EOW, Mumbai)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Harshad Bhadbhade a/w Ld. Advocate Shagufa Patel a/w
Ld. Advocate Nikita Mandaniyan for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
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
Kinner Kanu Nayak resident of Vile Parle, Mumbai, under Section
439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular
bail.

2.

A case being C.R. No.157 of 2022 is registered with EOW,
:2:
Order on BA No.105/24
Mumbai (C. R. No.1260 of 2022 registered with Santacruz Police
Station) against the present Applicant for the offence punishable
under Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”).
3.

Application is resisted by the Prosecution by filing its say at
Exhibit No.02.

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
The applicant / accused has taken amount of
Rs.30,35,22,667/- (Rupees Thirty Crores Thirty Five Lakhs
Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Seven only) from the
father of informant Amjad Ahmed Shaikh. Informant’s father had
invested said amount in Gowardhangiri Project of applicant.
Accused agreed to give 35 flats in the project as a returns of
investment to the father of informant. But accused neither give
any flat nor he returned said amount to the father of informant or
to the informant, during the period father of informant died on
13.08.2016. Thereafter also, informant and his brother have
consistently followed the applicant for return of investment. But
the applicant duped them. He has pretended that father of
informant was partner in his project and therefore, due to failure
of project, he has to suffer loss like him. According to informant,
his father was not partner in the project but he was the investor
for return of profit. Applicant has taken undue advantage of the
situation, and since inception he had an intention to cheat the
father of informant, who has invested huge amount / his hard
earned money in the project of applicant. Accordingly, report
came to be lodged.

:3:
Order on BA No.105/24
Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant, Ld. SPP for the
5.

Prosecution and Investigating Officer.
6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that, the applicant is
an innocent person. He is a businessman and admittedly he was
working on the project ‘Gowardhangiri CHS’. According to Ld.
Advocate for the applicant, father of informant invested in the
project as a partner of applicant. Therefore, when the project
failed, father of informant has also sustained loss like the loss
sustained by the applicant. There was no inducement or intention
to deceive anyone. It is a pure commercial transaction. But due to
some unavoidable circumstances, project could not be completed.
There is much delay in lodging report. When the other investors
have lodged report, the informant has also lodged after thought
concocted report against the applicant, without any basis.
Applicant is behind bar since before, in another cases filed by
investors i.e. flat purchasers. Informant has no case like such flat
purchasers and therefore, prima facie case is not made out
against the applicant. On these amongst ground, Ld. Advocate for
the applicant submitted that the applicant is entitle for grant of
bail.

7.

Per contra, Ld. SPP objected the bail application on the ground
that, the applicant is the Director of FE / Company. Admittedly,
he has received huge amounts from the investors. His conduct is
such that, he never made any agreement for receipt of such
amount. Even after, the death of investors / father of informant
he did not execute any agreement or return the amount to the
informant. During the investigation, his 12 properties are
:4:
Order on BA No.105/24
revealed. In such circumstances, when he had valuable properties
with him, he did not give explanation as to why he took huge
investments from third person. Thus, intention to deceive on part
of applicant is clear. He has deceived many other investors, who
purchased flats in his project. There is evidence to indicate that
he has used the amount received from the father of informant to
purchase properties. Prima facie concern of the applicant with the
alleged offences is clear. He has committed huge financial scam
and therefore, he is not entitle for grant of bail.
Reasons 8.

On perusal of record it reveals that, the applicant is not
denying the amount received from the father of informant. His
only contention that, the father of informant was partner in the
project and thereby, when the project failed, he has to suffer loss
equally like him. In that regard the applicant did not give any
documentary evidence to show that the father informant was
partner in the project. On the contrary, prima facie evidence
collected by the Investigating Officer reflects that the applicant
has used the amount obtained from the father of informant, for
purchase of immovable properties. He also hold 12 valuable
properties. But still, he has taken investments from 3 rd person.
Thereby, prima facie intention to deceive since inception is
reflected.

9.

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
:5:
Order on BA No.105/24
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
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.”
10.

In this case, 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. Investigation of the
offence is not based on only documentary evidence and the same
is quite complicated one. Charge-sheet against the applicant is
not yet filed. Other cases of the same nature are filed against the
applicant, shows his conduct and modus operandi to commit the
offence. 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.105 of 2024 filed by the
Applicant Kinner Kanu Nayak in connection with C.R. No.157 of
2022 is registered with EOW, Mumbai (C. R. No.1260 of 2022
registered with Santacruz Police Station) against the present
Applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409,
420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby
rejected.

2. The present Bail Application No.105 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.

:6:
Order on BA No.105/24
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
sd/-
Date: 19/03/2024
Mumbai
(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.105/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
21.03.2024 at 11.27 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