Mumbai, October 3, 2022 – Mitul Niranjan Shah, a 39-year-old businessman, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court in Mumbai in connection with an alleged cheating case. Shah was arrested in connection with Crime No. 28/2022, registered at L.T. Marg Police Station, for offenses under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations

According to the First Information Report (FIR), Shah allegedly received Rs. 2,11,70,000 from the complainant under the pretext that he had applied for a license for a Non-Banking Finance Company from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Shah allegedly promised to pay Rs. 6,00,00,000 to the complainant after receiving the license. The complainant claimed to have transferred the money in multiple transactions from his own account, his mother’s account, his wife’s account, and his sister’s account.

Shah allegedly showed the complainant a letter dated September 7, 2018, and a pay order from Standard Chartered Bank for Rs. 6,00,00,000 to gain his trust. He also issued cheques worth Rs. 6 crore to the complainant, Rs. 75 lakhs to his wife, and Rs. 2.5 lakhs to his sister, all of which were dishonored.

Shah’s Defense and Arguments

Mr. Shirish Shigwan, representing Shah, argued that the investigation revealed that the complainant had received Rs. 7,11,000 from Shah, indicating a transactional relationship. He contended that the material collected during the investigation did not establish the offense of cheating. He also pointed out that the prosecution’s witnesses did not support the case. Shah had been in judicial custody since March 19, 2022, and was ready to abide by the court’s conditions.

Prosecution’s Objections

Ms. Ratnavali Patil, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), and the Investigating Officer opposed the bail application, arguing that Shah might abscond and tamper with witnesses. They also mentioned that another accused in the case was yet to be arrested. The complainant also appeared and opposed the bail application.

Court’s Observations and Decision

Additional Sessions Judge Shri A.A. Kulkarni considered the submissions and the documents on record. The court noted that the investigation against Shah was complete and the charge sheet had been filed. The court also observed that there was no evidence on record to suggest that Shah had applied for a license for M3 Securities with the RBI or that any forged documents were seized from him.

“In view of material on record I am of the opinion that prima facie it appears that it is case of money lending and with help of police applicant is trying to recover his amount,” Judge Kulkarni stated in the order.

The court also noted that the complainant had not filed any case against Shah for the dishonored cheques or initiated any recovery proceedings. The court concluded that the case appeared to be a money-lending transaction. Shah, being a resident of Mumbai and ready to abide by the court’s conditions, was granted bail.

Bail Conditions

Shah was granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000 and one or more sureties of the same amount. The court imposed the following conditions:

• Shah must attend L.T. Marg Police Station upon receiving a notice from the Investigating Officer.
• He must provide his residential address proof and contact numbers to the Investigating Officer.
• He must not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the case.
• He must not leave India without prior permission from the court.
• The bail process will be completed before the lower court.

Key Points

• Money-Lending Transaction: The court found that the case appeared to be a money-lending transaction rather than a case of cheating.
• Lack of Evidence: The court noted the lack of evidence to support the allegations of forgery and misrepresentation.
• Charge Sheet Filed: The court considered that the charge sheet had been filed.
• Complainant’s Actions: The court noted that the complainant had not taken any legal action for the dishonored cheques.