:1:
Order in BA no. 436/23
MHCC020075522023
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.436 OF 2023
IN
C. R. NO. 124 OF 2023
Smt. Pooja Vishant Bhoir
Aged : 32 years, Occ : Businesswoman
Residing at Room No.02,
Bldg. No.A/1, Shri Ganesh Madhav
Sansar Khadak Pada, Kalyan (West),
Thane – 421301.

]
]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Cuff Parade Police Station)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Sunil Pandey for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Malankar for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI S. B. JOSHI
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 2nd August, 2023.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the applicant Smt. Pooja
Vishant Bhoir resident of Kalyan(W), Thane under Section 439 of
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in
connection with C.R. No.124 of 2023 registered with Cuff Parade
:2:
Order in BA no. 436/23
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as
“IPC”) and Section 3 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of
Depositors Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “M.P.I.D. Act”).
2.

The case of the prosecution against applicant is that she and
her husband Vishant had assured the informant for handsome
profit on making investment with their business named and
styled as “Algo Options Strategy Module”. Accordingly the
informant and his wife both have made investment of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and Rs.6,00,000/(Rupees Six Lakhs only) during November 2022 to March 2023.
But the applicant only managed to return her only two weekly
profit. Thereafter, she has not responded to their request to repay
them sum assured, even after issuing legal notice dated
15.03.2023 which remained without reply. Thus, the informant
lodged the report on 12.05.2023 with Cuff Parade Police Station,
Mumbai against the applicant and her husband.

3.

Upon receiving the information in writing the concern Police
Station registered the crime bearing No.124 of 2023 registered
with Cuff Parade Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Section 3 of MPID Act against the
applicant and her husband.

4.

The applicant denied this prosecution story by contending
that the victim has received Rs.1 Lakh by RTGS on the investment
of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only). She is ready and
willing to pay remaining amount by way of Demand Draft to be
:3:
Order in BA no. 436/23
deposited in the Court. She has replied the legal notice given to
her by the applicant. The allegations do not attract both the
Sections simultaneously under IPC and under MPID Act as
leveled. The offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC can not
go together. The dispute pertains to civil transaction. All the
documents pertaining to transactions are with the Investigating
Authority. Nothing is remained to be recovered now. The
investigation is completed and the charge-sheet is also filed. No
purpose would be solved by keeping the applicant behind bar
who is having high blood pressure as well as small kid of 8 years.
No possibility of her fleeing away. She is ready to abide with the
conditions if imposed. Thus, she prayed for her release.
5.

The Respondent/Ld. SPP opposed this application by filing
say at Exhibit No.2 and Exhibit No.3, on grounds that the
applicant has played vital role in committing the alleged fraud to
the tune of Rs.2,66,50,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Sixty Six Lakhs
Fifty Thousand only). Still the properties obtained by cheating are
yet to be recovered. If the applicant released on bail then there is
possibility of tampering with the witnesses and she will flee away.
However, a sum of Rs.-6,70,13,124/- (Minus Rupees Six Crores
Seventy Lakhs Thirteen Thousand One Hundred Twenty Four
only) from the bank and demat account of the applicant has been
freezed. The applicant is habitual offender facing crime at Nashik.
She has joined with her husband who is also one of the accused
in the present crime. The two vehicles Motor Cars valued for
Rs.27,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand
only) have been seized from the applicant. Still detail
investigation is outstanding. Hence, the Respondent / Ld. SPP
:4:
Order in BA no. 436/23
prayed for rejection of the application.
Heard both sides. In the light of the facts on record and
6.

submissions by the parties following points arise for my
determination and findings are given for the reasons mentioned
thereunder are as follows:Sr.
No
POINTS
FINDINGS
1.

Whether the applicant Smt. Pooja Vishant In the affirmative.
Bhoir is entitled for her release under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as prayed?

2.

What Order ?

As per final order.
REASONS
As to point nos. 1 and 2 :
7.

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that now
charge-sheet is filed. Investigation is over. Nothing is remained to
be recovered from the applicant. The say of Respondent itself
shows that the properties (movable), two vehicles and cash as
well as demat account of the applicant have been seized to the
tune of Rs.-6,70,13,124/- (Minus Rupees Six Crores Seventy
Lakhs Thirteen Thousand One Hundred Twenty Four only). The
applicant has given reply to legal notice issued by the applicant
and has shown her willingness to repay the remaining invested
amount, but before that she has been arrested. She is in jail since
15.02.2023, so no purpose would be served by keeping her in jail.
Thus, Ld. Counsel for the applicant prayed for release of the
applicant.

:5:
8.

Order in BA no. 436/23
The Ld. Prosecutor submitted that even though charge-sheet
is filed against the applicant considering her role attributed
alleged cheating and she being facing another crime, the
Respondent has strong objection to this application more
particularly for the grounds stated in their say.

9.

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant relied on the decision in
the case of Suresh G. Motwani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported
in 2004(SUPP)BOM.C.R.521, wherein it has observed that
criminal prosecution is not a proceeding for the recovery of dues
of the investors but is meant to punish the guilty. There is no
dispute as to the legal notice discussed as above.

10.

In this backdrop, it is to point out that as stated in the reply
of Respondent, the movable properties including two four
wheelers belonging to applicant as well as her bank account total
amounting to Rs.-6,70,13,124/- (Minus Rupees Six Crores
Seventy Lakhs Thirteen Thousand One Hundred Twenty Four
only) have been recovered and seized and the charge-sheet is also
filed. The applicant is in jail since 15.02.2023. In this situation
the trial will take long time in completion. Filing of the chargesheet is itself a substantial change in circumstance. So it is
necessary to consider this application in view of filing of chargesheet. No purpose would be served by keeping the applicant
behind bar for indefinite period. So it will be useful to quote the
observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay
Chandra Vs. CBI reported in AIR 2012 SC 830 by Hon’ble Apex
Court which reads as under,
:6:
11.

Order in BA no. 436/23
“(i)
Ordinarily, persons accused of any offence at the stage of
trial should be released on bail,
(ii)
Grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
Presumption of innocence is sacrosanct and therefore, bail
at the stage of trial is imperative to enable accused to look
after his own case and establish his innocence.”
28.

“WE are of conscious of the fact that the accused is
charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We
are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if
proved, may jeoparadise the economy of the country. At
the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the
investigating agency has already completed investigation
and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special
Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the
custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We
are of the view that the applicants are entitled to the grant
of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to
ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.”
The ratio laid down in above decision can be applied to the
present case. There is no likelihood of the applicant absconding
being inhabitant of Kalyan (W), Thane. Hence, the Court is
inclined to grant the bail to the applicant. However, to take care
of alleged apprehension of the Investigating Agency, it would be
justifiable one to impose stringent conditions on the applicant
while getting released her on bail. As such the Point No.1 is
answered in the affirmative.

12.

In view of reasoning and findings to Point No.1 as above, the
application being made out, it deserve to be allowed. As such
Point No.2 is answered as per following order :ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No. 436 of 2023 is hereby allowed.

:7:
Order in BA no. 436/23
2. The applicant Smt. Pooja Vishant Bhoir be released under Section
439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on her executing
PR bond of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with one or
two sureties bonds of like amount in C.R. No.124 of 2023
registered with Cuff Parade Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Section 3 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of
Depositors Act, 1999 on following conditions:i. The applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) for a period of three
months.

ii. The applicant to make surety compliance before concerned
Court. The Registrar (S) to accept it at ATH.

iii. The applicant shall attend each and every date of the trial
without fail.

iv. The applicant shall undertake in writing not to tamper with
further investigation as well as evidence and shall not
pressurize the witnesses of Respondent.
v. The applicant shall undertake in writing not to travel abroad
without the permission of the concern Court.
vi. The applicant shall deposit her passport if any with the
Respondent / I.O. or if at all it is already seized by Respondent
/ I.O., then it be retained with Respondent.
vii.The applicant shall also provide proof of her residential
address along with the phone or cell numbers of her two close
relatives, with the Respondent/ I.O.
viii. The applicant shall not alienate any valuable movable and
immovable property standing in her name or in the name of
her blood relatives without prior permission of the
concerned / Ld. Trial Court.
ix. The breach of any one of the above conditions by the applicant
shall enable the Prosecution /Investigating Officer to apply for
the cancellation of her bail.

:8:
Order in BA no. 436/23
3. Accordingly, Respondent/I.O. to take the note of this order.
4. The present Bail Application No. 436 of 2023 stands disposed of
accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
Digitally signed by
SANJAY
BHALCHANDRARAO
JOSHI
Date: 2024.07.15
11:30:55 +0530
Date : 02.08.2023.

Directly Dictated on
Draft given on
Signed on
: 02.08.2023.
: 02.08.2023.
: 02.08.2023.

( S. B. Joshi)
Designated Judge and Addl.
Sessions Judge, City Civil &
Sessions Court, Mumbai.

:9:
Order in BA no. 436/23
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
15.07.2024 at 11.28 A.m.
RE-UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Mrs. G. P. Acharekar
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. S. B. Joshi
C.R. No.07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
02.08.2023
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
02.08.2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on
04.08.2023
Corrections made as per order in MA No.1628 15.07.2024
of 2023 dated 06.07.2024 and order reuploaded on