Mumbai, Maharashtra – July 15, 2024 (Re-upload of Order dated August 2, 2023) – The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, at the City Civil & Sessions Court in Mumbai, has granted bail to Vishant Vishwas Bhoir, a 35-year-old businessman residing in Kalyan (West), Thane. The order, originally passed on August 2, 2023, by His Honour Judge Shri S. B. Joshi in Bail Application No. 550 of 2023, was re-uploaded on July 15, 2024, following corrections as per a subsequent court order.

Bhoir was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 124 of 2023 registered at Cuff Parade Police Station, Mumbai, for offenses punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3 of the MPID Act, 1999, which addresses the protection of depositors’ interests in cases of financial establishments defaulting in repayments.

Prosecution Alleges Joint Fraudulent Investment Scheme

The prosecution’s case alleges that Vishant Bhoir and his wife, Smt. Pooja Bhoir, operated a business named “Algo Options Strategy Module” and assured the informant and his wife of substantial profits on investments. The informant and his wife reportedly invested a total of ₹16,00,000 (₹10,00,000 and ₹6,00,000) between November 2022 and March 2023. However, the prosecution claims that after making only two weekly profit payments, the Bhoirs ceased communication and failed to repay the invested sum, even after receiving a legal notice dated March 15, 2023. This led to the informant filing a police report on May 12, 2023.

Applicant Claims No Direct Involvement and Highlights Asset Seizure

Vishant Bhoir denied the prosecution’s allegations, stating that his name was not initially mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) and that he was added as an accused 40 days after its lodging. He claimed no direct involvement in the alleged crime or the transactions in question, asserting that the investments were made solely with his wife, Pooja.

Bhoir’s defense also argued that the allegations did not simultaneously constitute offenses under both the IPC and the MPID Act as framed. He further contended that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature and that all transaction-related documents were already with the Investigating Authority, negating the need for further recovery. However, he acknowledged that two flats (Nos. 303 and 304) in Richa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. in Kalyan had been seized by the investigating agency. Bhoir emphasized his lack of prior criminal antecedents, the completion of the investigation with the filing of the charge sheet, and the lack of any risk of him absconding. He expressed his willingness to abide by any conditions imposed for his release.

Prosecution Opposes Bail, Citing Significant Fraud and Risk of Tampering

The Ld. SPP opposed the bail application, alleging that Vishant Bhoir played a crucial role in a larger fraud amounting to ₹3,15,60,000, affecting multiple investors. The prosecution expressed concerns about potential witness tampering and the risk of Bhoir absconding if released. They noted the freezing of ₹81,958.32 from his wife’s bank and demat accounts and highlighted Bhoir’s alleged history as a habitual offender with pending cases in Nashik, Latur, and Thane. The prosecution also mentioned the seizure and sealing of the two flats in Kalyan belonging to Bhoir and his wife, along with the seizure of two motor vehicles valued at ₹27,50,000. Despite these actions, the prosecution argued that detailed investigation was still outstanding.

Court Grants Bail, Emphasizing Charge Sheet Filing and Asset Seizure

After hearing arguments from both sides and considering the presented facts, Judge Joshi granted bail to Vishant Vishwas Bhoir. The court’s decision was significantly influenced by the filing of the charge sheet, indicating the completion of the primary investigation.

The court acknowledged the prosecution’s statement regarding the seizure of movable properties (two vehicles), the frozen amount in the applicant’s wife’s accounts, and the sealing of the two flats in Kalyan jointly owned by the applicant and his wife. The court also noted the applicant’s incarceration since June 23, 2023.

Referring to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s ruling in Suresh G. Motwani Vs. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that criminal prosecution aims to punish the guilty, not solely to recover investors’ dues.

Drawing upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s observations in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, the court emphasized the principle that individuals accused of offenses should ordinarily be released on bail during the trial stage, as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception, underpinned by the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court’s view that an accused’s continued custody might not be necessary for further investigation once the charge sheet is filed was deemed applicable.

Given that Bhoir was a resident of Kalyan (West), Thane, the court found no significant likelihood of him absconding. Consequently, the court was inclined to grant bail, subject to stringent conditions to address the Investigating Agency’s concerns.

Bail Conditions Imposed

The court ordered the release of Vishant Vishwas Bhoir on a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of ₹3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with one or two surety bonds of a like amount, subject to the following conditions:

i. Permission to furnish provisional cash bail of ₹3,00,000 for three months.

ii. Completion of surety compliance before the concerned Court’s Additional Traffic Headquarters (ATH).

iii.Mandatory attendance at each and every date of the trial.

iv. Written undertaking not to tamper with further investigation or evidence and not to pressurize the Respondent’s witnesses.

v. Written undertaking not to travel abroad without the concerned Court’s permission.

vi. Deposit of his passport (if any) with the Respondent/Investigating Officer (I.O.) or its retention by the Respondent if already seized.

vii.Provision of proof of his residential address along with the phone or cell numbers of his two close relatives to the Respondent/I.O.

viii. Prohibition on alienating any valuable movable and immovable property in his name or the name of his blood relatives without prior permission of the concerned/Ld. Trial Court.

ix. Breach of any of the above conditions would entitle the Prosecution/Investigating Officer to apply for the cancellation of his bail.

The court directed the Respondent/I.O. to take note of the order, and the Bail Application No. 550 of 2023 was accordingly disposed of. This decision underscores the court’s consideration of the advanced stage of the investigation (filing of the charge sheet) and the seizure of assets while balancing the accused’s right to liberty with the need to ensure a fair trial and prevent any obstruction of justice.