Mumbai, Maharashtra – May 4, 2022 – A Mumbai Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act has granted bail to Jay Vasantlal Gajjar, accused of a ₹18 crore financial fraud. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge C.V. Marathe, granted bail citing the documentary nature of the evidence, the accused’s cooperation with the investigation, and the lack of flight risk.
Jay Vasantlal Gajjar (46) was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 9 of 2022, registered with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Unit VII, Mumbai. He was charged under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 408 (criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant), 420 (cheating), 477(a) (falsification of accounts), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy), read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code1 (IPC).
Details of the Allegations:
According to the prosecution, Gajjar, who was employed as a dealer with Jas One Securities Pvt. Ltd., allegedly induced the complainant and his family members to keep their shares in a margin account under the pretext of mandatory regulations. He then allegedly transferred these shares to a beneficiary account without their consent or intimation. The prosecution further alleged that Gajjar sold off the shares of Janam Group Company, transferred them to accounts opened in his name and other persons, and forged digital signatures on demat instruction slips.
Arguments Presented During the Bail Hearing:
Advocate Girish Kulkarni appeared for Gajjar, while Ld. SPP Mrs. Tendulkar represented the prosecution, and Advocates Akhtar and Kshitija Wadatkar appeared for the intervenor.
Gajjar’s defense argued that he was innocent, had cooperated with the investigation, and had attended the police station whenever called. They emphasized that the allegations were vague and cryptic, and the transactions were recorded by institutions like the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), making his custodial presence unnecessary.
The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that Gajjar had committed serious economic offenses, could dispose of his properties, tamper with evidence, and flee the country. The intervenor emphasized the gravity of economic offenses and cited a Supreme Court judgment.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Marathe, after reviewing the FIR and hearing both sides, noted that the case was primarily based on documentary evidence that could be easily secured from institutions like NSE and BSE.
“From the lodgment of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer had called the applicant for preliminary inquiry. It is case of the applicant that he visited the police station every time when he was called and gave his explanation. After perusal of the reply (Exh.2), the Investigating Officer has not disclosed whether any amount from the misappropriated money was recovered from the applicant. The details given in the F.I.R. disclose that the case is based on documents which can be made available by the Investigating Agency from institutions like NSE or BSE,” Judge Marathe stated in the order.
The court also considered Gajjar’s long-standing employment with the complainant’s company (27 years), the lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that all offenses were triable by a Metropolitan Magistrate.
“From the contents of the F.I.R, it can be seen that the applicant was working in the Company since 1995 i.e. for more than 27 years. The alleged misdeeds started from the year 2012/13. The story narrated by the informant suggests that they used to rely on the applicant blindly for so many years and their shares were transferred without their consent but by following the procedure for such transfers,” Judge Marathe noted.
The court concluded that Gajjar was entitled to bail, considering the documentary nature of the evidence and his cooperation with the investigation.
Conditions of Bail:
The court granted bail to Gajjar on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount, subject to the following conditions:
- He must surrender his passport to the investigating officer within one week of his release.
- He must attend the EOW (Unit VII) Mumbai every Monday between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM until further orders.
- He must cooperate with the investigating authority and not tamper with prosecution witnesses.
- He must not leave India without prior permission of the court.
- He must inform the court of any change in his residential address.
Implications of the Decision:
This decision highlights the court’s emphasis on the nature of evidence, the accused’s cooperation, and the lack of flight risk when granting bail in financial fraud cases. It underscores the importance of documentary evidence and the ability of investigative agencies to secure such evidence from relevant institutions. The ruling also reflects the court’s consideration of the accused’s background and cooperation in balancing the need to uphold the law with the accused’s rights.