:1:
Order on BA No.287/24
MHCC020053732024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.287 OF 2024
IN
C.R. No.34 of 2023
Shivangi Mehta w/o Ashesh Mehta
Age : 34 years, Occ : Housewife
Residing at 1104 A, Wework Oberoi Commerz,
International Business Park,
Oberoi Esquire, Goregaon East
Mumbai – 400065
(Currently lodged in Byculla Prison)
]
]
]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through EOW, Unit -7, Mumbai)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Vinay Bhanushali for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 24th April, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused
Shivangi Mehta w/o Ashesh Mehta resident of Goregaon,
Mumbai, under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 for grant of regular bail.

:2:
2.

Order on BA No.287/24
A case being C.R. No.34 of 2023 is registered with EOW, Unit7, Mumbai (C. R. No.387 of 2023 registered with Amboli Police
Station) against the present Applicant for the offence punishable
under Sections 409, 420 r/w Section 34 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 No.02. Perused the papers of investigation, and the
documents filed on record.

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
Accused Ashesh Shailesh Mehta and Shivangi Ashesh Mehta
run a Financial Institution and online device / portal named as
‘DIFM’. The said portal reflects 3500 investors and investment
above 767 Crores. Accused claims to be an expert in Financial
Management. The said institution also invests money as
‘NIFTY50’ options towards short term gains (or losses) and then
pays to the investors 70% of the profit after deducting trade fee,
security transaction tax etc. Thus, accused lured the complainant
to invest with assurance of monthly profit with further assurance
of refund of the investment amount within 48 hours of demand.
The online APP developed by the accused is highly sophisticated
and professional. An agreement between the accused and the
complainant is also generated with the signature of accused on it.
In course of time, the complainant invested an amount of
Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) and his friend has
:3:
Order on BA No.287/24
also invested amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs
only). Similarly, thousands of people have invested small or big
amounts with the accused’s Financial Establishment, on the basis
of it’s assurance of profit and return of principal amount within
48 hours. In such circumstances, the complainant demanded his
principal amount on 20.06.2023 but it was not returned and
complainant came to know that the accused have also duped
many other investors for the amount of more than Rs.300 Crores.
Report came to be lodged with Amboli Police Station vide F.I.R.
0387 of 2023 on 26.06.2023 and subsequently it has been
transferred to EOW, Zone-VIII and registered as C.R. No.34 of
2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 r/w
Section 34 of IPC as well as Section 3 and 4 of the MPID Act.
5.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant, Ld. SPP for the
Prosecution.

6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that, this application
is a successive bail application filed by the applicant after chargesheet. Previous bail application, which was filed before filing of
charge-sheet was rejected. Now, as per charge-sheet, it is clear
that M/s. Bliss Consultants (hereinafter referred as “FE”) is the
proprietary concern of the husband of applicant. Being wife of
proprietor of FE, applicant was engaged in administrative work
only. She has no concern with the proprietorship of her husband.
Only material against the applicant is at page no.294 to 296 of
the charge-sheet i.e. printouts of website and e-mails sent to one
or two investors. Apart from it, there is nothing incriminating
against her. The said FE being proprietary concern only proprietor
:4:
Order on BA No.287/24
would be liable under MPID Act. It is further submitted that, as
per charge-sheet, there are 581 investors and the amount due is
110,93,59,446/-(Rupees One Hundred Ten Crores Ninety Three
Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Forty Six only) whereas
total property seized against it along with cash and assets is
worth of Rs.171,47,10,396/- (Rupees One Hundred Seventy One
Crores Forty Seven Lakhs Ten Thousand Three Hundred Ninety
Six only). The applicant received amount of Rs.68 Lakhs from the
bank account of FE, against her investment of Rs.14 lakhs. The
applicant was never employee / Director of the FE. She was never
looking after the day-to-day affairs of the FE. She has not played
any role in trading in securities and shares go, all the moneys
were in the account of her husband’s property concern’s account.
In proprietary concern only proprietor would be liable and not
any other person. Applicant is not the beneficiary of any of the
transaction except her own investment. On these amongst
ground, 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 offence allegedly committed by the applicant is
serious in nature. There is prima facie evidence against the
applicant and thereby, charge-sheet is filed against her on
21.03.2024. Previous bail application filed by the applicant is
rejected on merit and thereafter, there is no change in
circumstances as such to consider fresh bail application of the
applicant. Applicant was engaged in the business as one of the
Director of the FE and was actively working in administrative
department. She has made contacts with investors through e-
:5:
Order on BA No.287/24
mail. Till now, property amounting to Rs.171.41 Crores is
secured. Further investigation of the properties is going on. Other
co-ordinators / co-accused of the applicant and her husband are
to be apprehended. There are other cases lodged against
applicant in other States. On these amongst ground, Ld. SPP
submitted that the bail application filed by the applicant be
rejected.
8.

Record reflects that, earlier bail application filed by the
applicant was rejected considering prima facie concern of the
applicant with the alleged offence. Now, charge-sheet is filed.
Apparently, applicant is not the beneficiary of the amount
invested by the investors. Though, she has played active role in
the business administration which indicates inducement, she has
not secured personal unlawful gain out of those transactions. As
far as earlier criminal case under NDPS Act (filed in Madhya
Pradesh) which was lodged against applicant is concern,
Investigating Officer informed the Court that, in the said case
charge-sheet is filed only against prime accused, who implicated
the name of applicant and her husband. Thus, criminal
antecedents against the applicant is found to be in cloud.

9.

It is admitted by way of application that, the husband of
applicant is accepting liability towards investors. Assets of both
the accused are freezed and secured toward the interest of
investors. Amount of such asset i.e. Rs.171,47,10,396/- (Rupees
One Hundred Seventy One Crores Forty Seven Lakhs Ten
Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Six only) is more than the
amount of investments. Object of MPID Act is to secure the
:6:
Order on BA No.287/24
interest of investors. Money trail is more important.
10.

The applicant came to be arrested on 29.12.2023. Now
investigation is complete and thereby physical custody of the
applicant is no more required for custodial interrogation. Her
husband Ashesh Mehta, who according to him, is the sole
proprietor, has liability towards the investment of the investors.
Thus, there is change in circumstances on filing of charge-sheet.
Therefore, the applicant is no more required to languish behind
bar. Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that, the applicant
is a young lady and has no criminal antecedents. She is ready to
abide any condition on grant of bail. She is local resident and will
not flee away from justice. She will co-operate the investigation.
Considering all these aspects this Court is of the view that the
application filed by the applicant is to be allowed with certain
conditions. Hence, the following order :ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.287 of 2024 is hereby allowed
and disposed of.

2. The applicant Shivangi Mehta w/o Ashesh Mehta is hereby
released on bail in connection with C.R. No.34 of 2023 is
registered with EOW, Unit-7, Mumbai (C. R. No.387 of 2023
registered with Amboli Police Station) against the present
Applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 r/w
Section 34 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 on furnishing PR
bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one or more
sureties in the like amount.

3. The Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for a period of three
months.

:7:
Order on BA No.287/24
4. The Applicant to make surety compliance before concerned
Court.

5. The
applicant shall surrender her passport before the
investigating officer within a period of one week of her release.

6. That the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation
by the Investigating Officer as and when required, under written
intimation.

7. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of
this Court.

8. The Applicant shall not alienate any movable and immovable
property in her name or in the name of her relatives if any,
without permission of this Court.

9. The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or
pressurize the prosecution witnesses in any manner till the
conclusion of trial.

10. The Applicant shall furnish her contact number and residential
address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated,
in case there is any change.

11. The Applicant shall attend the dates of trial regularly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
Digitally signed
by ADITEE
UDAY KADAM
Date: 2024.04.25
13:39:35 +0530
Date: 24/04/2024
Mumbai
(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
Dictated directly on computer: 24/04/2024
Signed by HHJ on
: 24/04/2024
:8:
Order on BA No.287/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
25.04.2024 at 1.36 p.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
24.04.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
24.04.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
25.04.2024