:1:
Order in ABA no. 233/24
MHCC020045052024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 233 OF 2024
IN
C.R. NO.412 OF 2023
Suresh Meghraj Shroff
Age – 65 years, Occ – Developer
Residing at Sheela Niwas, R. C. Marg,
Opp. Post Office, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 057.

]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through D. N. Nagar Police Station)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Hrishekesh Mundargi a/w Ld. Advocate Madan Gupta a/w
Ld. Advocate Shrishti Singh for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
Ld. Advocate Sunny Punamiya for original complainant.
Ld. Advocate Jugal Kanani for intervenors – Mr. Rajeev Manmohan
Gupta and Mr. Vicky Madanmohan Gupta.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 12th April, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1.

This is an application by the present applicant under Section
439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular
bail in connection with C.R. No.412 of 2023 registered with D. N.
Nagar Police Station against the present Applicant for the
:2:
Order in ABA no. 233/24
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”), Sections 4, 5, 13, 14
of MOFA Act and Section 3 of The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as
“M.P.I.D. Act”)
Application is resisted by the Prosecution by filing its say at
2.

Exhibit No.02.
3. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
Since 2013, till the date of F.I.R. applicant / Director of
Harileela project and investment Pvt. Ltd. Company (hereinafter
referred as “FE”) induced informant – investors to invest in
redevelopment project namely Adhyay / Visava Co-operative
Housing Society, Building No.13, D. N. Nagar, Andheri (W),
Mumbai, with promise of attractive economic profit, gain, trust of
the
investors
and
thereby,
secured
total
amount
of
Rs.2,72,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Two Lakhs only)
for the construction of project i.e. towards the sale transactions of
the flats in the project to the respective investors. But then
applicant did not use the amount for construction and
misappropriated the same for his personal gain. Thereby,
applicant cheated the investors. With such charges, report came
to be lodged.
4.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant, Ld. SPP for the
Prosecution, Investigating Officer and Ld. Advocate for the first
informant / intervenor.

:3:
5.

Order in ABA no. 233/24
Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that, the applicant
and informant have settled their dispute. Consent terms to that
effect are finalized and copy of the same is produced on record
vide Exhibit 7. Contention of the applicant is supported by the
informant and submitted that the informant has no objection for
grant of bail to the applicant.

6.

Apart from the compromise / settlement, it is the contention
of Ld. Advocate for the applicant that, the allegations made by
the informant has no substance. It is pure business transaction.
There was some delay for compliance and then MoU was
executed on 09.01.2024 to settle the issues. Certain amounts
were paid in accordance with the terms of the said MoU. Details
of the payment is given in the application. Thus, it is the
contention of the applicant that, the transaction between the
parties were based on development and the sale transaction.
There was no intention to deceive the purchasers of the flat.
Howsoever it may be, now, the issues between the parties are
settled and purchasers of the flat in the project do not have any
objection for grant of bail to the applicant.

7.

In respect of objection on part of intervenor, it is the
contention of Ld. Advocate for the applicant that this intervenor
has no concern with the present F.I.R. They have not directly
involved in any business transaction with the applicant or with
the Company of the applicant. The person Brijamohan Gupta
through whom intervenor claimed investments, has given no
objection to the bail application filed by the applicant. He has
also declared that the MoU dated 28.02.2017 executed between
:4:
Order in ABA no. 233/24
him and the applicant as one of the Director of M/s. Sun-vision
Estate and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. is still valid and subsisting. All
the rights under the said MoU are exclusively belongings to him
and no other person has any share, right, title, interest / claim
arising out of it. Thus, it has been made clear that, intervenor has
no nexus with the present complaint / report. Therefore, it is
submitted that, application filed by the applicant be considered
excluding objections by the intervenor.
8.

Ld. SPP objected the bail application on the ground that, the
terms for the settlement are not yet finalized. Investigation is in
progress. Allegations in the report are quite serious in nature.
Thorough investigation is required to be done and therefore,
application be rejected.

9.

Ld. Advocate for the intervenor objected the application with
the contention that, the intervenors have invested huge amount
for the purchase of landed property in the project of the
applicant. They are real investors for the profit on invested
amount. They are the family members of Mr. Brijamohan Gupta
through whom they have invested their hard earned money in the
Company of applicant namely M/s. Sun-vision Estate and
Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Applicant is the Director of the said
Company. Address of the Company mentioned in the F.I.R. and
the aforesaid Company is one and same. This aspect indicate that
the applicant is liable for repayment of the investments of the
intervenors. They have invested huge amount for the profit and
therefore, their complaint would merge in the complaint of
present informant instead of multiplying litigations for the same
:5:
Order in ABA no. 233/24
cause. Settlement between informant and the applicant has no
concern with the intervenor. Investigation about the claim of
intervenor is need to be done and recovery of the amount is an
essential aspect. In support of his contention, Ld. Advocate for the
applicant relied upon the following judgments :
1. Ramesh Kumar Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 496 wherein it is observed that, ‘ A disquieting
trend emerging over the years which has gained pace in recent
times necessitates this opinion. It has been found by us in
multiple cases in the past several months that upon First
Information Reports being lodged inter alia under section 420
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the IPC”, hereafter), judicial
proceedings initiated by persons, accused of cheating, to
obtain orders under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (“the Cr. PC”, hereafter) are unwittingly
being transformed into processes for recovery of the quantum
of money allegedly cheated and the courts driven to impose
conditions for deposit/payment as pre-requisite for grant of
pre-arrest bail. The present case is no different from the others
and it is considered appropriate to remind the high courts and
the sessions courts not to be unduly swayed by submissions
advanced by counsel on behalf of the accused in the nature of
undertakings to keep in deposit/repay any amount while
seeking bail under section 438 of the Cr. PC. and incorporating
a condition in that behalf for deposit/payment as a prerequisite for grant of bail.’
2. Bimla Tiwari Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 47, wherein it is observed that, ‘By way of these
petitions, the petitioner/informant seeks to question the order
dated 14.11.2022 as passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna in Crl. Misc. Case No. 15125 of 2022 and 19515 of
2022, whereby the High Court took note of the offer made by
the accused-respondent No. 2, of making payment of a sum of
Rs.75,000/(Seventy
Five
Thousand)
to
the
petitioner/informant and, considering such an offer and
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
pertaining to offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, granted the concession of pre-arrest bail
to the respondents, subject to the offered payment.’
:6:
10.

Order in ABA no. 233/24
On perusal of record it reveals that, only objection to the
application of applicant is raised by the intervenor claiming to be
an investor in the other Company in which applicant is one of the
Director. Informant has not only consented for the bail
application but also supported the case of applicant that, he is
entitle for the grant of bail on the basis of compromise /
settlement. To support his contention the Ld. Advocate for the
intervenor relied upon the following judgments :
1. Sanjay Ram Hingorani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2017 SCC OnLine Bom 1404.
2. Nieshaa Preetam Gharat Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2017 SCC OnLine Bom 1415.
3. Noor Alam Hasib Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 20768.
4. Musa Ismail Lakadawala Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Ramprasad Singh
and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3261.
5. Deepak Yashwant Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3637.
6. Musa Ismail Lakadawala Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Ramprasad Singh
and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3296.
7. Fahim Firoz Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2021
SCC OnLine Bom 13794.

Sum and substance of the observations in the aforesaid
authorities is that, ‘in the wake of the consent terms, further
incarceration of the applicant is unnecessary.’
11.

Record reflects that, the informant in this case has filed
consent terms through which all the claims mentioned therein
were about to settle. Investigating Officer has filed additional say
in respect of intervention and thereby, it is mentioned that the
alleged investment by the intervenor were done in the project at
Malad and the intervenors are the resident of Borivali (W),
:7:
Order in ABA no. 233/24
Mumbai. Their complaint has no concern with the present F.I.R.
Hence, the complaint application filed by the intervenor is
transferred to Malad police station.
12.

Thus, it becomes prima facie clear that, the intervenor has
no direct concern with the present F.I.R. Facts in the judgment
relied upon by the Ld. Advocate for the intervenor and the facts
in the present case are not found to be identical one. It was
related to pre-arrest bail. Even otherwise, now it is clear that, the
complaint of the intervenor is transferred to other police station.
The project related to F.I.R. and the project in which allegedly
intervenors have invested the amount are also different.
Applicant is one of the Director and not the whole and sole
authority of the said project. Moreover, the person through whom
intervenors claimed their rights has negated the same. Thus, in
this case, this Court does not find any substance in the objections
raised by the intervenors.

13.

Applicant came to be arrested on 29.02.2024. He is behind
bar for substantial period. He is ready to settle the claims of
investors and accordingly, consent terms are filed on record.
Object of the MPID Act is certainly to protect the interest of
investors and therefore, considering aforesaid all the factors, this
Court is of the view that, the bail application filed by the
applicant deserves countenance. Hence, the order :
ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.233 of 2024 is hereby allowed
and disposed of.

2. The applicant Suresh Meghraj Shroff is hereby released on bail in
:8:
Order in ABA no. 233/24
connection with C.R. No.412 of 2023 registered with D. N. Nagar
Police Station against the present Applicant for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, Sections 4, 5, 13, 14 of MOFA Act and Section 3 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.

4. The Applicant to make surety compliance before concerned
Court.

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

6. That the applicant shall make himself 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 his name or in the name of his wife/children 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 his 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: 2024.04.12
16:44:10 +0530
Date: 12/04/2024
Mumbai
Dictated directly on computer
Signed by HHJ on
: 12/04/2024
: 12/04/2024
(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
:9:
Order in ABA no. 233/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
12.04.2024 at 4.43 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
12.04.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
12.04.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
12.04.2024