Mumbai, February 11, 2022 – In a significant legal development, the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, has granted bail to Sarbashish Basu, an accused in the multi-crore financial fraud case involving M/s. Minance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The decision was pronounced by Additional Sessions Judge C. V. Marathe in Court Room No. 7 on February 10, 2022, in connection with Criminal Case No. 3238/PW/2021.
Case Background
The case originated from an FIR (CR No. 611 of 2021) registered at Malad Police Station on June 26, 2021, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant or banker), and 420 (cheating), along with Sections 3 and 4 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, 1999.
The prosecution alleged that Basu, a salaried employee of M/s. Minance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (FE), was involved in luring investors into fraudulent schemes under the guise of investment opportunities. The informant in the case claimed to have invested a sum of ₹67 lakh with the firm, which failed to return the money, resulting in significant financial losses. The prosecution further contended that the accused played a role in the illegal siphoning of funds collected from depositors, contributing to what they described as a large-scale financial scam.
Defense Argument
Advocate Laxmi Raman, appearing for Basu, argued that her client was falsely implicated in the case. She emphasized that Basu was merely an employee responsible for investor relations and had no direct role in managing financial transactions. Furthermore, the defense pointed out that Basu himself had invested ₹4.10 lakh in the company and was also a victim of the scheme orchestrated by the primary accused, Anurag Bhatia, who remains at large.
The defense also cited Basu’s previous release on bail in a separate but related case (CR No. 289 of 2022) registered with Koregaon Park Police Station, Pune. Moreover, the defense stressed that no money had been recovered from Basu during the investigation, further weakening the allegations against him. Given that the charge sheet in the case had already been filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali (CC No. 3238/PW/2021), the defense argued that his continued detention was unnecessary.
Prosecution’s Stand
Opposing the bail application, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Mrs. Tendulkar asserted that the accused had not cooperated with the investigation and that multiple complaints had been lodged against him and other accused persons. The prosecution expressed concerns that Basu might attempt to flee if released on bail and that his release could hinder further investigation into the financial scam. The prosecution insisted that substantial material evidence linked Basu to the larger fraud.
Court’s Ruling
After considering both sides, Judge Marathe noted that while Basu was associated with the company at the relevant time, no misappropriated amount had been recovered from him. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but emphasized that the offenses were triable by a Metropolitan Magistrate and that the trial was expected to take considerable time. Given these circumstances, the court found no compelling reason to continue Basu’s detention, especially since the charge sheet had already been filed.
To mitigate concerns regarding potential flight risk or witness tampering, the court imposed strict conditions for Basu’s release:
- The accused was required to furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh along with one or more sureties of the same amount.
- He was directed to surrender his passport to the investigating officer within one week of his release.
- Basu was mandated to attend all court proceedings as required.
- He was instructed to cooperate with the investigation and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
- He was prohibited from leaving India without prior permission from the court.
Legal Implications and Future Proceedings
The case highlights the complexities of financial fraud investigations and the challenges faced by courts in balancing the rights of the accused with the need for thorough prosecution. While Basu’s bail does not imply acquittal, it raises critical questions about the extent of his involvement and whether the primary accused, Anurag Bhatia, remains the key figure in the scam.
Legal experts believe that as the trial progresses, further evidence and testimonies will shed light on the exact role of each accused. Meanwhile, the prosecution is expected to continue its efforts to trace and recover the misappropriated funds and apprehend other involved parties.
This case serves as a cautionary tale for investors and underscores the importance of regulatory oversight in financial investment schemes. As the legal proceedings unfold, the focus will remain on ensuring justice for the victims and holding those responsible accountable for their actions.
