Mumbai, March 12, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Pritish Dayaram Mungmode, accused in a multi-crore investment fraud case. Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire, presiding over Court Room No. 60, denied the bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 298 of 2024), citing the lack of any significant change in circumstances and the ongoing investigation.

Mungmode was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 21 of 2023 (C.C.T.N.S. No. 332/2023), registered with the Economic Offences Wing (E.O.W.), Unit-5, for offenses under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), and 420 (cheating)¹ read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).²

The Allegations and Arrest:

According to the prosecution, Mungmode and his co-accused lured investors, including Saroj Bhosale, with promises of high returns by investing in dismantling projects. They collected ₹18.20 crore from the complainant and other victims but failed to return any amount. Mungmode was arrested on June 27, 2023.

Defense Arguments:

Mungmode, through his advocate Pulkit Awasthi, argued that he was falsely implicated and that the transactions were civil in nature. He claimed that the invested money was used for dismantling projects and lost due to contract breaches. He asserted that the submission of the charge sheet constituted a change in circumstances warranting bail.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by S.V. Kekanis, and the intervener/victim, represented by Parth Sangharajka, strongly opposed the bail application. They argued that Mungmode had previously filed and had rejected anticipatory and regular bail applications. They contended that the investigation was ongoing, a co-accused was absconding, and Mungmode had admitted to receiving the investment amounts. They also highlighted that Mungmode had not fulfilled his voluntary undertaking to return the money.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Tapkire, after hearing arguments and reviewing the record, made the following observations:

• Previous Rejections: The court noted that Mungmode’s anticipatory and regular bail applications had been rejected previously.
• Lack of Change in Circumstances: The court found that the submission of the charge sheet did not constitute a significant change in circumstances.
• Ongoing Investigation: The court emphasized that the investigation was still ongoing, with a co-accused absconding.
• Admitted Transactions: The court noted that Mungmode had admitted to receiving the investment amounts.
• Voluntary Undertaking: The court highlighted Mungmode’s failure to fulfill his voluntary undertaking to return the money.
• Prima Facie Evidence: The court found prima facie evidence of Mungmode’s involvement in the alleged fraud.
• Intention to Misappropriate: The court found evidence that the accused had the intention to misappropriate the funds.

Judge Tapkire concluded that Mungmode did not deserve to be granted bail and rejected his application.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Consistency in Rulings: The court considered the previous rejections of Mungmode’s bail applications.
• Ongoing Investigation: The court emphasized the importance of completing the investigation.
• Lack of Genuine Change: The court scrutinized the claim of a change in circumstances and found it to be unsubstantiated.
• Seriousness of Offense: The court considered the seriousness of the alleged economic offense.
• Fulfillment of Undertakings: The court considered the accused’s failure to fulfill his voluntary undertaking.

This ruling underscores the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in cases involving serious economic offenses, particularly when the investigation is ongoing and there is no significant change in circumstances.