O-B.A.530.2024
MHCC020101022024
1
Dt.20.07.2024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M. P. I. D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, Gr. BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 530 OF 2024
IN
CRIME NO. 89 OF 2023
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.760 OF 2024
Vilas Shankar Londhe
Age: 46 years: Occu: Business:
Residing at : Flat No 302, H No 514,
New Shital Villa, Palidevad Sukapur,
Taluka Panvel – 410 206
…Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Senior Inspector of
Police Dindoshi police station
Vide C.R.No. 89 of 2023)
…Respondent
Coram : HHJ SHRI N.G. SHUKLA,
(Court No. 20)
Date
: 20.07.2024
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Mr. Sandesh Jadhav for Applicant/accused.
Ld. APP. Mrs. Chaitrali Panshikar for the Respondent/State-EOW.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Pravin Misale for intervenor.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
01.

By way of this application, applicant/accused prayed for grant of
bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here in
after referred as “Cr.P.C.”) in connection with Crime No.89 of 2023
registered with Dindoshi Police station for the offence punishable under
O- B.A.530.2024
2
Dt.20.07.2024
Section 420 r/w Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred as “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of The Maharashtra Protection
of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (here-in-after
referred as “MPID Act”).
02.

Ld. Adv. Ms. Chaitrali Panshikar filed reply (Exh.2).

Adv. Mr.

Pravin Misale for intervenor filed written argument at Exh.5 and
strongly opposed application. In the course of argument Ld. advocate
for the applicant filed undertaking showing his willingness to deposit
amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with the police to return to the informant.
03.

I have heard Learned Advocate Mr. Sandesh Jadhav for applicant
and learned APP Ms. Chaitrali Panshikar for State/EOW. Ld. Adv. Mr.
Pravin Misale for intervenor filed written argument at Exh.5
04.

The case of prosecution in brief is that, applicant is director of
Abhishek Credit Co-operative Society Co-operative society (hereinafter
referred as “said society”) Applicant and his wife Rupali Vilas Londe
being manager responsible for return of the deposited amount with
maturity benefit. The informant had invested Rs.22,00,000/- at the
instance of applicant and his wife in the said society. Applicant has not
returned principal amount alongwith benefit on maturity to the
informant. Hence, informant lodged FIR. During the course of
investigation, names of two more depositors and total fraud of Rs.
33,31,124/- is revealed.
05.

Ld. Adv. Sandesh Jadhav for the applicant submitted that,
applicant has returned Rs. 11,00,000/- . Thereafter, applicant has paid
Rs. 1,75,000/- on 21.05.2024 and Rs. 75,000/- on 27.05.2024 through
NEFT totaling Rs.13,50,000/- to the informant. In the year 2019 due to
O- B.A.530.2024
3
Dt.20.07.2024
outrage of pandemic Covid-19 and non return of recovery of loan
amount by various borrowers, applicant could not return remaining
amount to the informant. Ld. advocate is relying of the list of
borrowers who had taken loan from the society. He also argued that,
there is no misuse of the invested amount of the informant by the
applicant. During police custody of the applicant no such misuse is
revealed. Police has seized all the bank accounts of the applicant.
06.

He further argued that, informant demanded huge amount than
invested and therefor consent terms were not finalized. Applicant has
withdrawn anticipatory bail application filed in Hon’ble High Court.
Informant is a retired police officer. Applicant is falsely implicated in the
present crime. Ld advocate also argued that said society is not come
under purview of “Financial Establishment” as per Section 2 of the
MPID Act. Applicant is ready to return Rs. 4,00,000/-to the informant.
Hence, Ld. advocate prayed to grant bail to the applicant.
07.

Ld. APP argued that, though applicant contended that he has
return Rs. 14,00,000/- but the total amount deposited by the informant
is not returned. During the course of investigation two more investors
are revealed, who have invested Rs.11,31,124/- which were also not
returned by the applicant. Investigation is in progress. If applicant
released on bail, he would create hurdle in the investigation. Hence, she
prayed to reject the application.
08.

Ld. Advocate for the intervenor argued that applicant had sought
Anticipatory Bail before Additional Sessions Court, Dindoshi which was
rejected. Thereafter, he withdrawn anticipatory bail application filed
before Hon’ble High Court. Applicant has not returned entire amount
deposited by the informant and committed fraud. Hence Ld. advocate
O- B.A.530.2024
4
Dt.20.07.2024
for intervenor prayed to reject the bail application.
09.

I have considered submission and perused record. It appears from
the say of police and FIR that, in the month of December 2015
informant had invested total amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- in eight
installments and further invested Rs. 10,00,000/- in May 2016.
Applicant is chairman of the said society and not a director. The said
society is not owned and controlled by any State Government or Central
Government. Applicant has not filed any document to show this fact.
Hence, the said society comes within ambit of the “Financial
Establishment” under Section 2 of the MPID Act.
10.

The bank statement relied by the applicant shows that applicant
had paid interest of Rs. 2604 in every month to the informant since
2015. However, amount invested by the informant is Rs. 12,00,000/- for
the interest at the rate of Rs. 12.50% and 14%. Thus there is no proper
payment of interest as per aforesaid rate of interest to the informant.
Though the applicant has contended that Rs. 11,00,000/- is paid as
interest. But informant has not received payment of interest and
principle amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. As per chart given in the say of
police the maturity of invested amount was in the year 2017 and 2020.
Applicant failed to return entire invested amount on maturity. During
investigation, it is revealed that applicant has deceived informant and
also not paid amount to other two depositors on maturity. Thus, prima
facie there is sufficient evidence showing involvement of the applicant
in the present crime. Investigation is still in progress. If applicant
released on bail, hurdle may be created in investigation. Undertaking
given by the applicant shows his willingness and readiness to pay Rs.
40,00,000/-. But considering the amount
O- B.A.530.2024
5
Dt.20.07.2024
invested by informant, readiness of applicant to refund Rs. 4,00,000/- is
not sufficient to grant him bail. For these reasons, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the applicant.
ORDER
1.

Bail Application 530 of 2024 is reject and stands disposed
off.

Digitally signed by NITIN
GANGADHAR SHUKLA
Date: 2024.07.25
16:41:18 +0530
( N.G. SHUKLA )
Designated Judge under MPID Act, C.R.NO.20
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.

Dt. 20/07/2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Submitted on
Signed on
:
:
:
:
20.07.2024
24.07.2024 (21st holiday being Sunday)
24.07.2024
25.07.2024
O- B.A.530.2024
6
Dt.20.07.2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
20.07.2024
Mrs. R. R. Hate
Name of the Judge
HHJ Shri N.G. SHUKLA
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
20.07.2024
Judgment and order signed by 25.07.2024
P.O.
HHJ was on leave on 22nd and
23rd July 2024 and Steno was
also on leave on 22nd and 23rd
July 2024
Judgment/order uploaded on
25.07.2024