Mumbai, Thane [Current Location] – April 15, 2025 – The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act) for Greater Bombay has rejected the bail application of Vilas Shankar Londhe, the chairman of Abhishek Credit Co-operative Society. The order, dated July 20, 2024, was pronounced by HHJ Shri N.G. Shukla (Court No. 20) in Bail Application No. 530 of 2024, which was filed in connection with Crime No. 89 of 2023 registered at Dindoshi Police Station.
Londhe, 46, was arrested and accused under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act for allegedly defrauding depositors of his cooperative society.
The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that Londhe, as the chairman, and his wife Rupali Vilas Londe, as the manager, were responsible for the return of deposited amounts with maturity benefits. The informant had invested ₹22,00,000 in the society at their instance but did not receive the principal amount along with the promised benefits upon maturity, leading to the lodging of an FIR. The investigation further revealed two more depositors who were also allegedly defrauded, bringing the total alleged fraud to ₹33,31,124.
Advocate Mr. Sandesh Jadhav, representing Londhe, argued that his client had already returned ₹13,50,000 to the informant through NEFT transactions. He contended that the non-return of the remaining amount was due to the financial strain caused by the Covid-19 pandemic in 2019 and the non-recovery of loan amounts from various borrowers. Mr. Jadhav relied on a list of borrowers who had taken loans from the society. He also argued that there was no misuse of the informant’s invested amount by Londhe, which was not revealed during police custody. He further stated that the police had seized all of Londhe’s bank accounts.
Mr. Jadhav also claimed that the informant had demanded a larger sum than invested, hindering the finalization of consent terms. He pointed out that Londhe had withdrawn his anticipatory bail application filed in the High Court and that the informant was a retired police officer, suggesting a potential false implication. A key argument was that the Abhishek Credit Co-operative Society did not fall under the definition of a “Financial Establishment” as per Section 2 of the MPID Act. Londhe’s advocate also submitted an undertaking showing his client’s willingness to deposit ₹4,00,000 with the police for the informant. He thus prayed for bail.
Learned APP Mrs. Chaitrali Panshikar, representing the State/EOW, argued that despite Londhe’s claim of returning ₹14,00,000, the total deposited amount by the informant had not been fully repaid. She highlighted the discovery of two more investors who had invested ₹11,31,124 and had also not received their dues from Londhe. The APP contended that the investigation was ongoing and that Londhe’s release on bail would obstruct the process, urging the court to reject the application.
Advocate Mr. Pravin Misale, representing the intervenor (presumably one of the depositors), strongly opposed the bail, pointing out the rejection of Londhe’s anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Court and his subsequent withdrawal of the High Court application. He argued that Londhe had not returned the entire deposited amount and had committed fraud, thus requesting the rejection of the bail application.
HHJ Shri Shukla, after considering the submissions and perusing the record, noted that the informant had invested a total of ₹22,00,000 in the society in multiple installments in 2015 and 2016. The court observed that while Londhe claimed to be a director, police records indicated he was the chairman. The court rejected the argument that the society did not fall under the MPID Act, stating that Londhe had not provided any documents to show that the society was owned or controlled by the State or Central Government, thus placing it within the ambit of a “Financial Establishment” under Section 2 of the MPID Act.
Regarding the repayment claims, the court noted that while bank statements showed monthly interest payments to the informant since 2015, the amounts did not align with the claimed interest rates of 12.50% and 14% on the invested ₹12,00,000. The court also pointed out that despite Londhe’s contention of having paid ₹11,00,000 as interest, the informant had not received the principal amount of ₹4,00,000. The maturity dates for the investments were in 2017 and 2020, and Londhe had failed to return the entire invested amount. The investigation revealed that Londhe had allegedly deceived the informant and the other two depositors.
The court concluded that prima facie, there was sufficient evidence showing Londhe’s involvement in the present crime and that the ongoing investigation could be hindered if he were released on bail. While acknowledging Londhe’s undertaking to pay ₹4,00,000, the court deemed this insufficient considering the total amount invested by the informant. For these reasons, the court was not inclined to grant bail.
ORDER:
- Bail Application 530 of 2024 is rejected and stands disposed off.
The order, dictated on July 20, 2024, transcribed on July 24, 2024 (after a Sunday holiday), submitted on July 24, 2024, and signed on July 25, 2024, underscores the court’s serious view of alleged financial fraud, particularly under the MPID Act, which is designed to protect the interests of depositors. The ongoing investigation and the failure to fully repay the depositors were key factors in the denial of bail, despite the applicant’s partial repayment and willingness to deposit a further amount.