Mumbai, April 6, 2023 – The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act), at the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, presided over by His Honour Judge Shri S. M. Tapkire (Court Room No. 7), has granted bail to Pranali Ashok Kulkarni, a 49-year-old businesswoman and Director of Shubharambh Nagari Ram Sanstha Maryadit. Kulkarni, who was accused No. 7 in the case, was granted bail on March 10, 2023, with the detailed order uploaded on April 6, 2023.

The bail application, No. 108 of 2023, was filed under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with C.R. No. 149/2021 dated March 27, 2021, registered with the Ghatkopar Police Station. The charges against Kulkarni and other accused include offences punishable under Sections 409 (Criminal breach of trust), 420 (Cheating) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code,¹ 1860, and Section 3 of the MPID Act.

The Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Unit-3 General Cheating-1, Mumbai, representing the State, strongly opposed the bail plea by filing a written objection (Exhibit No. 02). Ld. Advocate Niranjan Mundargi appeared for the applicant, while Ld. SPP V. C. Malankar represented the State.

Allegations Against the Accused:

The prosecution’s case, based on the complaint filed by Rajesh Gavane, alleges that the applicant and other accused, as directors of Shubharambh Nagari Ram Sanstha Maryadit (Patsanstha), along with a person named Naresh Kadam, induced him and his family members to deposit a total of ₹29,40,000 in the Patsanstha by promising a 15% per annum interest rate.

The complainant alleged that when he required ₹13,00,000 in 2018 for house renovation and approached the Patsanstha, including the applicant and Naresh Kadam, they neglected him and failed to return his deposited amount. He further alleged that the applicant and 13 other directors transferred the deposited amounts of the Patsanstha into their personal bank accounts, thereby cheating and misappropriating the depositors’ funds and committing fraudulent default.

Applicant’s Defense:

Ld. Advocate Niranjan Mundargi argued on behalf of Pranali Kulkarni that despite the informant allegedly depositing the amount in 2016, the FIR was lodged only in 2021, indicating a significant delay. He contended that his client had not committed any crime and, although she was a director, she had not misappropriated any funds or committed any fraudulent default.

The defense argued that the substantial deposited amount in the Patsanstha was provided as loans to its members, and the financial crisis arose due to the non-recovery of these loan amounts from the borrowers, leading to the inability to repay the depositors. It was also pointed out that only three accused had been arrested so far, and the substantial material allegations were primarily against the Managing Director, Shankar Shedge, against whom accusations of transferring ₹12,55,800 into his personal account were made.

Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the applicant and her relatives had deposited more than ₹15,00,000 in Fixed Deposit Accounts of the said Patsanstha, which remained with the institution. The defense also noted that the chargesheet had not yet been submitted, and the offence under Section 409 IPC was added subsequently, allegedly as an afterthought to bypass the mandate of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. In light of these circumstances, the defense argued that there was no reason for the applicant’s continued custodial detention.

State’s Opposition:

Ld. SPP V. C. Malankar strongly opposed the bail, arguing that Ramesh Shendge and Naresh Kadam were the masterminds behind the crime. He alleged that they, along with other directors, conspired to lure the informant and other depositors by promising an unviable 15% per annum interest rate. The prosecution claimed that the accepted deposit amounts were given as loans to the directors themselves, with Naresh Kadam being a significant borrower who had not repaid his loans.

The prosecution further alleged that the applicant and other accused had transferred and diverted substantial amounts of the Patsanstha’s funds into their personal accounts and the accounts of other directors. Audit reports for the period 2016-2017 allegedly revealed serious irregularities, defaults, improper loan transactions, and intentional mistakes involving the applicant and other directors. Therefore, the prosecution argued that the applicant was involved in the crime and did not deserve bail.

Court’s Analysis and Order:

His Honour Judge Shri S. M. Tapkire carefully considered the rival submissions, contentions, and the available records. The court noted that the crime was registered against 14 accused, all allegedly managing directors and directors of the Patsanstha.

While acknowledging the allegation that the applicant was a director actively involved in the crime, the court observed that the principal allegations against her were that, with her consent, large loan amounts were disbursed to directors who failed to repay them, and ₹12,55,800 was transferred to her personal account without reason.

In response to the latter allegation, the applicant submitted that no such amount was transferred without a valid reason, and she was neither a borrower nor a beneficiary of the alleged amount. The court also noted the absence of significant evidence collected by the investigating agency in this regard.

The court highlighted the delay between the registration of the crime (March 27, 2021) and the applicant’s arrest (around January 31, 2023). It also noted that the substantial material allegations appeared to be primarily against Ramdas Shendge, Naresh Kadam, and Shankar Shandge. Against the applicant, the main allegation was her directorship and the alleged transfer of ₹12,55,000 to her account.

The Fixed Deposit Receipts presented by the applicant, clarifying that she and her relatives had deposited a significant amount in the Patsanstha, were also taken into consideration. The fact that the chargesheet had not been submitted despite the applicant’s arrest on January 31, 2023, was also noted.

Considering the prima facie revelation of certain investigated facts and circumstances regarding the allegations against the applicant, and the court’s assessment that the allegations did not present a seriously considerable reason for her further custodial detention, the court was inclined to grant bail subject to stringent conditions.

The court passed the following order:

1. Bail Application No. 108 of 2023 is allowed, subject to the following conditions for applicant/accused No. 7, Pranali Ashok Kulkarni:i. She shall be released on executing a PR Bond of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount in connection with C.R.No.149/2021 dated 27.03.2021 registered with Ghatkopar police station, Mumbai.ii. She shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence or pressurize any prosecution witness in any manner.iii. She shall attend the Respondent/Investigating Officer every Wednesday between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. until the filing of the chargesheet.iv. She shall not indulge in any criminal activity.v. She shall cooperate in the investigation as and when required for interrogation.vi. She shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.vii. She shall submit her proper residential address proof, telephone, and cell numbers with the Respondent/State.viii.She shall submit her passport with the Respondent/State, if available.ix. She shall not alienate, transfer, or create any third-party interest over her movable and immovable properties or those of her blood relatives.x. Disobedience or breach of any of these conditions will render the bail order liable to cancellation.
2. The Respondent/EOW is directed to take note of the order.
3. Bail Application No. 108 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly.

The granting of bail to Pranali Ashok Kulkarni, subject to stringent conditions, reflects the court’s consideration of the delayed FIR, the applicant’s own deposits in the Patsanstha, and the apparent focus of the investigation on other key individuals. The conditions imposed aim to ensure her cooperation with the ongoing investigation and prevent any potential tampering with evidence or witnesses.