:1:
Order in BA no. 549/23
MHCC020095532023
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.549 OF 2023
IN
C. R. NO. 1284 OF 2022
Ramsingh Rangilal Chaudhary
Aged : 39 years,
Residing at A6, Janseva Society Vasari Hill
Albert Compound, New Mulund Link Road,
Shankar Nagar, Goregaon (West),
Mumbai-400104
(Presently in Arthur Road Jail)
]
]
]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Malad Police Station)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Safiullah Mansuri for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Malankar for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI S. B. JOSHI
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 19th July, 2023.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is filed by applicant Ramsingh
Rangilal Chaudhary for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in C.R. No.1284 of 2022
registered with Malad Police Station for the offences punishable
:2:
Order in BA no. 549/23
under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of of
The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999
(hereinafter referred to as “M.P.I.D. Act”).
2.

The allegations against the applicant as appears in the F.I.R.
and statement of informant Sandeep Sitaram Nivadunge are that
the applicant has given promise to him, his wife, his sister and
other family members as well as his friends for giving them each
handsome return on the sum invested with him and thus,
succeeded in receiving a sum of Rs.35,95,968/- and thus, caused
cheating with them.

3.

On these allegations the informant lodged the F.I.R. bearing
C.R.No.1284 of 2022 registered with Malad Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of MPID Act against the applicant.

4.

The applicant by moving this application denied the allegations
in the F.I.R. as well as the information given in writing by the
informant in toto on ground that the story made out in the F.I.R.
is totally false. Prima facie the allegations in the F.I.R. no where
shows the ingredients of offence of cheating and commission of
offence under Section 420 of IPC. Secondly, the allegations are
silent as to alleged criminal breach of trust. Therefore, according
to applicant, the offences leveled under Sections 406 and 420 of
IPC cannot be charged together or run together as there is no
mens rea at the hands of applicant. Also offences leveled under
Section 3 of MPID Act is not applicable for want of fraudulent
:3:
Order in BA no. 549/23
default on the part of the applicant. The transaction in question
with the informant is of purely civil nature which is converted
into criminal nature just to harass the applicant.
5.

According to applicant, the business of Credit Society in
question was badly affected due to Covid-19 Pandemic. However,
the Credit Society in question has taken proper steps for getting
recovered the loan amount from the defaulter and as such there
was no fraudulent default on behalf of applicant. According to
applicant, since arrest, he is in judicial custody and languishing
into jail, he is ready to abide the conditions and also ready to cooperate with the investigation as and when required. No purpose
would be solved by keeping him behind bar when investigation is
almost completed. Thus, he prayed for allowing the application
and granting him bail.

6.

The Respondent/Ld. SPP opposed this application by filing
say at Exhibit No.2 on ground that the allegations in the F.I.R.
shows role attributed to the applicant while committing offences
in question. There is ample documentary evidence collected from
the applicant during the investigation and if he released on bail
then he can pressurize the witnesses and also it will hamper the
investigation which is in progress. The Investigating Agency has
to trace out and secure the properties which are purchased by
misusing the sum misappropriated by the applicant. Also there is
possibility of his fleeing away. Thus, on these ground, the
Prosecution opposed to the application.

:4:
Order in BA no. 549/23
Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant as well as Ld SPP and
7.

Investigating Officer present. In view of the facts on record and
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 Ramsingh Rangilal In the affirmative.
Chaudhary is entitled for his 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 :
8.

While making his submission, Ld. Counsel for the applicant
contended that the offences leveled against the applicant i.e.
offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC cannot run together
and ingredients of this offences are not disclosing in the
allegations in the F.I.R. Likewise, there being no material to see
that there is fraudulent default or intention, the offence under
Section 3 of MPID Act is not applicable. In fact according to Ld.
Counsel, the investors have given the cheques for their alleged
investment which came to be dishonored for which the applicant
has initiated proceeding under the law.

9.

While arguing the Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that
recently the concern Police Station has filed charge-sheet in this
crime. There are in all 10 accused persons but the informant has
:5:
Order in BA no. 549/23
targeted him alone, the other accused are not arrested and for
their arrest, the applicant cannot be kept behind bar when
charge-sheet is filed. Thus, according to Ld. Counsel, the
investigation is completed and there is no need to keep him
behind bar. Finally, the Ld. Counsel made submission in view of
the observations in case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Anr.
that the applicant is entitled to get release him on bail.
10.

The Ld. Prosecutor as well as Investigating Officer, both have
submitted that filing of charge-sheet is not ground to consider
present application. Even if the charge-sheet is filed against the
present applicant but further investigation is in progress. The
applicant is habitual in causing cheating to the investors. The
properties belonging into the applicant are yet to be secured. If
the applicant release on bail then possibility of tampering with
the evidence and pressurize to witnesses cannot be ruled out at
the hands of the applicant. Thus, they prayed for rejecting the
application.

11.

In rebuttal, the Ld. Advocate for applicant submitted that the
crime in question based on documentary evidence which are in
custody of Police/ Investigating Agency so no question of
tampering with those document arises.

12.

It is well settled that filing of charge-sheet is itself a
substantial change in circumstances. The present application has
to be considered on merits in view of the filing of the chargesheet. It is also necessary to examine whether accused should be
continued in custody even after the investigation is over so far as
:6:
Order in BA no. 549/23
this accused is concerned. Though, it is stated in say by the
prosecution that this applicant has formed bogus Co-Op. Credit
Society like present one Pratigya Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
and started to cause cheating to the people in the vicinity, but
there is nothing on record of this file to show that. Also there is
nothing to show that the applicant is habitual one having criminal
antecedents. Also it is not the prosecution case that the applicant
was previously convicted in any offence much less has any F.I.R.
against him. Custodial interrogation of the applicant appears over
and he is in judicial custody from 09.05.2023. The Charge-sheet
is stated to be filed on 6th July 2023 filing of which is fairly
admitted by the SPP and Investigating Officer during their
submission. However, it is one of the submissions by the
respondent through Investigating Officer and Ld. SPP that other
wanted accused are to be arrested and the immovable properties
of the applicant and or culprits are yet to be secured. In this
regard, it has to point out that for the arrest of other culprits, it
would not be proper to keep this applicant in jail. As regard
securing the properties as contemplated under MPID Act, the
Investigating Agency / Prosecution has every right to proceed
against such properties. But only for that ground the accused
cannot be kept behind bar in the light of filing of the charge-sheet
against him. The witnesses appears to be residing within the
jurisdiction of this Court. The trial of the case may take a very
long time and trial would take its own time to conclude. So no
purpose of the Prosecution would be served by keeping the
applicant behind bar. So in this regard, it will be useful to quote
here the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay
:7:
Order in BA no. 549/23
Chandra V/s. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 which read as under :
“43. ……..The trial may take considerable time and it looks
to us that the applicants, who are in jail, have to remain in
jail longer than the period of detention, had they been
convicted. It is not in the interest of
justice
that
the
accused should be in jail for an indefinite period.
No
doubt,
the
offence
alleged
against
the
appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss
to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter
us
from
enlarging
the
appellants
on
bail when
there is no serious contention of the respondent that
the accused,
if
released
on
bail,
would
interfere
with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see
any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that
too,
after
the
completion
of
the investigation and
filing of the chargesheet.” (emphasis added)
Also further observation in the same decision speaks that
1.

“(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
:8:
Order in BA no. 549/23
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.”
13.

Since the Ld. Counsel for the applicant has relied on the
decision in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and Anr. In
Miscellaneous Application No.1849/2021 in SLP (Cri) No.5091 of
2021 in support of his submission, the observation therein is
reproduced as under :“We make is clear that our intent was to ease the process of bail
and not to restrict it. The order, in no way, imposes any additional
fitters but is in furtherance of the line of judicial thinking to
enlarge the scope of the bail.”
14.

The applicant has also raised issue of non-applicability of
MPID Act and also raised issue that at the same time the
allegation under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC can not run
together, but it is point to be adjudicated on merit on full pledge
trial and not at this stage. So this aspect can not be considered at
this juncture.

15.

Having regard to above said aspects and there being nothing
in the say of EOW/State that any thing is remained to be
recovered from the applicant and applying the tests as laid down
in the case of Sanjay Chandra V/s. CBI and Satender Kumar Antil
Vs. CBI and Anr., in the crime the offence alleged are in respect of
cheating. The story of the Prosecution is stated to be based on
documents. Say is also silent to show any activity adverse to the
investigation of EOW is reported by EOW. As regard the
apprehension of the EOW/Prosecution, stringent conditions can
be imposed on the applicant while releasing him on bail.

:9:
Order in BA no. 549/23
Therefore, the applicant has made out his case as such he is
entitled for his released on such Point No.1 is answered in the
affirmative.
In the light of aforesaid reasons and findings as above the
application deserves to be allowed by releasing the applicant
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. But to safeguard the interest of the
Prosecution, certain conditions are required to be imposed, so
that applicant does not indulge in similar activities in future till
trial is over. As such Point No.2 is answered as per following
order :ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No. 549 of 2023 is hereby allowed.
2. The applicant Ramsingh Rangilal Chaudhary be released under
Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on his
executing PR bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only)
with one or two sureties bonds of like amount in C.R. No.1284 of
2022 registered with Malad Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of of The Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 on following
conditions:i. The applicant shall attend each and every date of the trial
without fail.

ii. The applicant shall undertake in writing not to tamper with
further investigation as well as evidence and shall not
pressurize the witnesses of EOW.
iii. The applicant shall undertake in writing not to travel abroad
without the permission of the concern Court.
iv. The applicant shall deposit his passport if any with the EOW
or if at all it is already seized by EOW, then it be retained with
EOW.

:10:
Order in BA no. 549/23
v. The applicant shall also provide proof of his residential
address along with the phone or cell numbers of his two close
relatives, with the EOW.
vi. The applicant shall not alienate any valuable movable and
immovable property standing in his name or in the name of
his blood relatives without prior permission of the concerned /
Ld. Trial Court.
vii.The breach of any one of the above conditions by the applicant
shall enable the prosecution EOW /Investigating Officer to
apply for the cancellation of his bail.
3. Accordingly, Respondent/EOW to take the note of this order.
4. The present Bail Application No. 549 of 2023 stands disposed of
accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
Digitally signed
by SANJAY
BHALCHANDRA
JOSHI
Date:
2023.07.19
16:31:38 +0530
Date : 19.07.2023.

Directly Dictated on
Draft given on
Signed on
: 19.07.2023.
: 19.07.2023.
: 19.07.2023.

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

:11:
Order in BA no. 549/23
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
19.07.2023 at 4.30 p.m.
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
19.07.2023
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
19.07.2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on
19.07.2023