Mumbai, April 19, 2024 – The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, has rejected the bail application of Anil Baidhnath Soni, accused in a multi-crore investment fraud case. Judge Aditee Uday Kadam denied bail, citing Soni’s alleged involvement in a sophisticated conspiracy and the potential for him to tamper with evidence.

Soni, a 31-year-old businessman from Surat, Gujarat, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 69 of 2023, registered with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Unit-7, Mumbai. The case, originally registered as Crime No. 319 of 2023 at MRA Marg Police Station, involves allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420 read with 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The Allegations and Modus Operandi

The complainant, Nandalal Soni, a businessman from Jaipur, Rajasthan, alleged that he was defrauded of Rs. 48 lakhs through a sophisticated investment scam. The accused, including Ashish Dubey, Ravi Patel, Prashant, and an operator named Kabir, lured him into investing in the stock market through a Telegram channel called “Ashwini Solutions” and a purported broking company, “May Alice Blue Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.”

The complainant was instructed to open a Demat account and deposit various sums of money. He was initially led to believe he was making profits, but later informed of significant losses. When he attempted to withdraw his funds, he was further pressured to deposit more money. The investigation revealed that the complainant was directed to deposit funds into bank accounts belonging to Anil Soni at Kotak Mahindra Bank and Federal Bank.

Prosecution’s Case and Evidence Presented

The prosecution argued that Anil Soni was a key player in the fraud, as his bank accounts were used to receive the defrauded money. They emphasized that the other accused were absconding, and Soni was apprehended based on the trail of financial transactions. The prosecution also highlighted the recovery of Rs. 20 lakhs from Soni, indicating his direct involvement in the fraudulent activities.

The prosecution argued that the defense put forth by the applicant, that he gave his bank details to a friend, was unreliable. They argued the modus operandi of the accused indicated a well thought out conspiracy, and the applicant was a part of a larger racket.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Decision

Soni’s defense argued that he was innocent and had no direct involvement in the fraud. They claimed he had merely provided his bank account details to a friend as a favor and that the recovery of Rs. 20 lakhs cleared any suspicion against him. They also emphasized that the entire investigation was based on documentary evidence and that his continued detention was unnecessary.

However, the court rejected these arguments, citing the strong evidence linking Soni to the fraud. Judge Kadam noted that Soni’s bank accounts were central to the crime and that his explanation of providing them to a friend was not credible. The court also highlighted the sophisticated nature of the fraud and the possibility that Soni was part of a larger criminal network.

Reasons for Bail Rejection

The court cited the following reasons for denying bail:

• Involvement in a Racket: The court found that the modus operandi suggested a well-organized racket, and Soni’s involvement could not be ruled out.
• Use of Bank Accounts: Soni’s bank accounts were directly used to receive the defrauded money, indicating his active participation.
• Recovery of Funds: The recovery of Rs. 20 lakhs from Soni further implicated him in the fraud.
• Absconding Co-Accused: The other accused were absconding, and releasing Soni could hinder the investigation.
• Risk of Tampering: The court believed there was a possibility that Soni could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if granted bail.
• Premature Stage of Investigation: The investigation was still at a premature stage, and releasing Soni could impede further progress.

Implications and Future Proceedings

The denial of bail underscores the court’s commitment to addressing complex financial frauds and protecting depositors’ interests. Soni will remain in custody as the investigation continues. The case will proceed to trial, where the prosecution will present its evidence, and the defense will have the opportunity to challenge the allegations. This decision reflects the courts stance on economic offenses, and the gravity of the charges.