BA 6815
1
BEFORE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT AT
BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, AT MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2015
IN
C.R. NO.89 OF 2013
Rajeev Mahavirprasad Todi,
Aged: Adult, Occ: Business,
R/o: C21, Akash Tower,
Judges Bungalow Road,
Bodakdev, Ahmedabad 380 059.
….
Applicant.
….
Respondent.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of EOW, UnitV,
CB CID, Mumbai C.R. No.89/13)
APPERANCE :
Advocate Pasbola for the Applicant.
SPP Adv. Avinash Avhad for the State.
Adv. Karnik for informant/ intervener.
CORAM : SPECIAL JUDGE, M.P.I.D. ACT.
D.P. SURANA (C.R. No.36)
DATED : 07.12.2015.
ORALORDER
The applicant accused Rajeev Todi, who was came to be arrested
09.10.2015 in EOW C.R. No.89/2013 in EOW for the offence punishable
u/sec.409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477 A, 120 B of I.P. Code and section 3
2
BA 6815
of the M.P.I.D. Act, 1999 has filed application this application u/sec.439 of
the Cr.P.C. for his release on bail in the crime.
2.
It is the case of prosecution that, National Spot Exchange Ltd.
(in short NSEL) provided electronic platform to the buyers and sellers for
entering into pair contract T+2 and T+25 wherein, T2 is the pay in date
and T25 is pay out date. That, on the NSEL platform the buyers and sellers
who resides far away from each other and don not know each other can
trade in different commodities. That one who intend to sell his
commodity/s has to deposit his goods at warehouses operated by NSEL,
wherein quality, quantity etc., of goods were checked.
Electronic
warehouse receipts were generated by NSEL. One who intends to purchase
the goods, so deposited in NSEL accredited warehouses, is required to
deposit margin money and on purchase, copy of electricity warehouses
receipt is issued to him.
The crime is registered on the information of Pankaj Ramnaresh
Saraf against NSEL, its directors, FTIL, its directors, 25 borrowers, brokers
and others for committing several acts of forgery and criminal breach of
trust thereby defrauding 13,000 investors of their hard earned Rs.5,600/
crores, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by them.
It is further alleged that the NSEL, which was supposed to
trade in sale and purchase of commodities, deviated from its business
module wherein, they had promised assured returns of 14% p.a. That
without there being actual physical stock of the commodities, NSEL
officials in collusion with there 25 borrowers and the brokers, appointed
by NSEL itself, generated false and bogus warehouse receipts, without
there being actual stock of the commodities. Whereas in all around 13,000
3
BA 6815
investors were induced for higher returns by the NSEL and were duped to
the tune of Rs.3,500 Crores, and thereby undertaken financial transaction,
on the garb of sale and purchase. That these 13,000 investors were
fraudulently defrauded and defaulted by the NSEL in collusion with his
member borrowers and brokers.
3.
It is alleged against the applicant that out of 25 borrowing
companies M/s. Swastik Overseas Corporation is one of the defaulters of
NSEL and its outstanding amount is Rs.102.98 Crores. The propitiatory
concern is engaged in the business of trading of oil and oilseeds. It became
member of the NSEL on November, 2012 and immediately started trading
in Castor seed. At the time of membership, Falguni Rajesh Mehta was the
proprietors of the company however, she has given power of attorney to
her husband Rajesh Mehta who was arrested in this case. The applicant
accused Rajeev Mahavirprasad Todi, was director of M/s. N.K. Industries
Ltd. (in short NKP), from 1998 to 2013 and was instrumental in enrolling
NKP as a member of NSEL. He supervised all the billing and
documentation in respect of amount received from NSEL. Total liability of
NKP is Rs.969.89 crores. He also introduced M/s. Swastik Overseas
Corporation to the NSEL which received funds to the tune of Rs.102.98
crores. The applicant accused was instrumental in diverting these funds to
his companies Krishna Horticulture and Mannan Agro, the companies
owned by his family. The accused Rajesh Kumar Mehta is one of the
director in Mannan Agro and has 30 % stake in the said company. That the
applicant accused and earlier arrested accused Rajesh Mehta in connivance
with officials of NSEL issued bogus stock offer letter to NSEL submitted
that there is stock available for trade on the basis of which bogus
4
BA 6815
warehouse receipts were generated. As on 31.07.2013, as per the offer
letters issued by the company, there should have been a stock of Castor
seed valued at Rs.102.98 crores. However, the stock was missing from the
NSEL accredited warehouses. From the fund flow of the company, it is
revealed that an amount of Rs.68.56 crores was diverted to the applicant
accused, his companies and family members. That the applicant accused is
also a director of another company M/s. Shriram Horticulture Developers
and Processors Pvt. Ltd. The other director of this company is Umang Todi,
who is the son of the applicant accused. This company received an amount
of Rs.2.15 crores from Swastik Overseas Corporation. The applicant
accused also transferred monies from the account of Swastik Overseas
Corporation to the account of himself (Rs.1.80 crores), his wife Suchita
(Rs.3.09 crores), his son (Rs.2.33 crores) and his daughter (1.03 crores).
The applicant accused had also transferred monies from the account of
M/s. Swastik Corporation to the accounts of his other relatives and friends.
That the total amount transferred to the account of relatives and his
friends of the applicant accused is Rs.10.70 crores. The applicant accused
hatched a criminal conspiracy with the arrested accused and the key
management persons of NSEL. However, earlier arrested accused Rajesh
Mehta was merely a puppet and the entire affairs of the company were
orchestrated by the applicant accused. The earlier arrested accused and his
family members received an amount of Rs.2.68 crores only from the total
amount. The applicant accused is the key person involved in the
commission of this crime.
4.
Heard Advocate Pasbola for the applicant. He submitted that
applicant is permanent resident of Ahmedabad. He was not absconding but
5
BA 6815
he filed ABA. He further submitted that there is no possibility of tampering
by the applicant. Applicant is already interrogated. Applicant has given
names of each person to whom the applicant has given the amount.
Applicant has paid the amount to the land owners with whom IO is making
inquiry. That the bank account of the applicant is already freezed. That the
title deeds of the flat of the applicant is already with the bank in pursuance
to the loan taken. That, Chargesheet is already filed in the crime on
06.01.2014 wherein applicant is not named. He further submitted that
applicant is alleged to have borrowed amount of Rs.68.56 crores and the
settlement was entered for Rs.77.08 crores. Out of which 32 went to
account of Mannan Agro which was invested in land at Madosa Gujarat
and those agriculturist have accepted to have received the payment and
are also ready to pay. He further submitted that applicant is not direct
borrower of NSEL. Whereas, borrower Falguni Mehta is wife of Rajesh
Mehta of Swastik Corporation. He submitted that other coaccused
including Rajesh Mehta is granted bail and no purpose will be served in
keeping the applicant behind the bars.
5.
As against this, SPP Advocate Avhad and IO opposed the bail
application contending that the accused had been absconding since long
and has not cooperated in the investigation and failed to provide any
information about utilization of funds received from the NSEL. That, Huge
amount is to be recovered at the instance of accused. That, the accused is
the person who can give information about this because there are instances
of cash withdrawal. Assets purchased from the crime proceeds are to be
identified. Fund flow of the crime proceeds is to be prepared. Documents
related investments made by the accused in acquiring assets are to be
6
BA 6815
recovered from him. The applicant accused is a resident of Ahmedabad
and is likely to threaten the witnesses thereby frustrating the very process
of investigation. The accused will abscond if, released on bail and will not
be available for investigation. This fact is evident from the past record of
the accused. As such, SPP prayed that the application filed by accused may
be rejected.
Advocate Karnik opposed the application on the ground that
applicant is director of N.K. Proteins, the biggest defaulter company of
NSEL. That there is prima facie involvement of accused in the said crime.
That accused has siphoned the amount and he and his family members are
the beneficiary. That applicant has not come with any suitable proposal to
deposit the amount of his liability which is admitted by him. That the other
accused are released on bail after filing of chargesheet. Whereas, charge
sheet is not filed against the applicant hence, he is not entitled to be
released on bail.
6.
It is not disputed that the applicant is the director of NKP, who
is the largest defaulting member of the NSEL. But the coaccused directors
of NKP and also the office bearers of the NSEL are already released on bail.
The order of granting them bail is not at all challenged. The released co
accused might have released on bail after the filing of charge sheet against
them but the applicant was came to be arrested on 09.102015 and the
period of 60 days is about to expire. It is not satisfactory shown as to why
and on what grounds really the applicant’s custody is necessary for the
further investigation, irrespective of the fact that the chargesheet is not
filed as against the applicant or further investigation as against him is
pending. As such, I am of the view that the applicant accuse is entitle to
7
BA 6815
be released on bail on the law of parity too. Only because the applicant has
not come with a suitable proposal to repay the entire amount of his
liability alleged to be due as against him, he cannot be detained behind the
bars.
7.
The accused applicant is in custody since 09.10.2015. There is
no material to show that only if the applicant is kept behind the bars, the
further investigation will be facilitated and other wise not. I.O. has not
even sought permission to interrogate the applicant in jail during his J.C.
As such, the grounds putforth by the prosecution opposing the application
of bail of the applicant are not sufficient enough to refuse bail to the
applicant.
8.
The I.O. has not disputed the fact that the applicant accused
has paid amounts to some farmers towards the purchase of the land.
Properties of NKP in the crime is already secured in the said crime. The
title deeds of the flat of the applicant is also with the banks. I.O. has not
specifically pointed out as to what properties or documents are left from
the applicant to be seized or on what point there was non cooperation
from the applicant accused.
9.
The allegation of the I.O. of tampering or absconding are
general in nature. The coaccused, who was released on bail are not
alleged to be absconding or have tampered with any witnesses or the
evidence. The applicant’s address is also not disputed by the I.O.
10.
Most of the investigation is based on documentary evidence,
8
BA 6815
which are already in the possession of I.O. None of the grounds put forth
by the I.O. opposing the bail application, in my view, are sufficient to keep
the applicant behind the bars. So also, all the The documents relating to
applicant are also seized in the crime. To have an opportunity to the I.O. to
further interrogate the applicant, pending investigation, conditions can be
imposed on him, so as to have an opportunity to I.O. to complete
investigation smoothly. In the result, I am of the view that, applicant is
entitle to be released on bail with strict conditions to be imposed. As such,
I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
Criminal bail application no.68/2015 is hereby allowed.
Applicant Rajeev Mahavirprasad Todi is ordered to be released on
bail in EOW Crime No.89/2013 for the offence u/sec.409, 465, 467, 468,
471, 474, 477A r/w sec.120B of the I.P. Code and sec.3 of the MPID Act,
on his executing PR bond of Rs.5 (Five) Lakhs with one or more sureties
to make up the like amount with following conditions
1. that applicant shall mark his presence at concern police station
with investigating officer on coming 10 alternate Saturday between
10 am to 1 pm. and as and when called by I.O.
2. that applicant shall not leave India without the permission of this
court.
3. that applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing any facts to
any police officer or court.
4. that applicant shall not alienate or disposed off, in any manner,
9
BA 6815
any of his immovable properties without the permission of court.
Date : 07.12.2015
( D.P. Surana )
Special Judge, M.P.I.D. Act.
City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Order Dictated on :07.12.2015
Transcribed on
:07.12.2015
Signed on
:08.12.2015
“I affirm that the contents of the PDF file order are the same, word to word, as
per the original order.”
Name of Steno with post
: Arun A Mudaliyar
(H.G. Stenographer)
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) : HHJ Shri. D. P. SURANA (CR 36)
Date of pronouncement of order
: 07/12/2015
Order signed by the P.O. on
: 08/12/2015
Order uploaded on
: 10/12/2015