Mumbai, Maharashtra: The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, presided over by His Honour Judge Shri S. B. Joshi at the City Civil & Sessions Court in Mumbai, has rejected the bail application of Ranjit Shamrao Jadhav, an accused in the multi-crore Buxcoin scheme fraud case. The order, dated November 4, 2023, pertains to C.R. No. 166 of 2022, initially registered with the Cyber Police Station, Mumbai (and also referred to as C.R. No. 225 of 2022 at Pantanagar Police Station).
Ranjit Shamrao Jadhav, a 38-year-old businessman residing in Pune, was arrested in connection with allegations of cheating and causing an economic loss of ₹2,86,88,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Six Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand only) to investors through the Buxcoin scheme. He was booked under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code,1 1860, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.
In his bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Jadhav denied all allegations. His counsel, Advocate Sandesh Jaybhay, argued for bail based on several grounds, including a delay in filing the FIR (as the transactions allegedly occurred in 2017-2018), the absence of a prior notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. before his arrest, and the bail granted to a co-accused. Jadhav claimed he was merely an agent and an investor himself, not a director, employee, or partner of the involved company. He also mentioned similar cases registered against him in Pune where he had been released on bail and cited the bail granted to co-accused Ganesh Sagar as grounds for parity.
The prosecution, represented by SPP Seema Deshpande, vehemently opposed the bail application, asserting that ample evidence pointed to Jadhav’s involvement in the crime. The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) submitted in their reply that a witness, Aslam Abdul Gani Malik, who invested ₹9,92,000/-, had transferred ₹2,00,000/- into the bank account of Jadhav’s wife, Puja Jadhav. Furthermore, Jadhav had allegedly returned ₹20,00,000/- to the same witness in cash, cheque, and coins, suggesting he was a beneficiary of the fraudulent scheme. The prosecution argued that releasing Jadhav on bail could lead to him absconding, tampering with the ongoing investigation, and influencing witnesses. They also highlighted that the end-use of the defrauded amount and the properties owned by Jadhav were still under investigation.
After hearing the arguments from both sides, Judge Joshi framed two points for determination: whether Ranjit Shamrao Jadhav was entitled to bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., and the subsequent order.
In his reasoning, Judge Joshi acknowledged Jadhav’s claims of innocence and his assertion that he did not directly receive money from the complainant. However, the court noted that the FIR clearly alleged that Jadhav and other co-accused assured the complainant and investors of becoming millionaires upon investment. More significantly, the court highlighted the EOW’s findings that ₹2,00,000/- from the invested amount of witness Aslam Abdul Gani Malik was traced to the bank account of Jadhav’s wife, indicating his potential benefit from the alleged fraud.
Judge Joshi emphasized that the investigation into the large sum of ₹2,86,88,000/- was still ongoing, and the charge-sheet was yet to be filed. The court found that the EOW had presented material indicating a nexus between Jadhav, other co-accused, and the alleged criminal acts. While Jadhav’s defense argued against the applicability of the IPC and MPID Act sections, the court stated that such a determination could not be made definitively at this stage, especially considering the allegations of inducement and false promises made to the investors.
Addressing the parity argument based on the bail granted to co-accused Ganesh Sagar, Judge Joshi distinguished the two cases. He noted that the court’s order in Sagar’s case specifically mentioned that the investigating authority could not trace any particular amount to him. In contrast, the EOW’s investigation revealed a direct financial link to Jadhav through the transaction involving his wife’s bank account, suggesting he was a beneficiary.
Therefore, Judge Joshi concluded that no case was made out for granting bail to Ranjit Shamrao Jadhav, answering the first point in the negative. Consequently, Bail Application No. 937 of 2023 was rejected. The Investigating Officer was instructed to take note of the order, and the application was disposed of accordingly.
This order signifies the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in cases involving significant economic offences, especially when the investigation is ongoing and there is evidence suggesting the applicant’s potential involvement and financial benefit from the alleged crime. The distinction made between Jadhav’s case and that of the previously bailed co-accused highlights the importance of specific evidence linking an accused to the alleged fraudulent activities.