Mumbai, August 14, 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 Suhas Kisan More, a 33-year-old unemployed resident of Kurla, Mumbai. The order, dated August 11, 2023, was issued by His Honour Judge Shri S. B. Joshi in Bail Application No. 576 of 2023, pertaining to C.R. No. 148 of 2023 registered at the Nehru Nagar Police Station.

More was accused of offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),¹ 1860, as well as Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (MPID Act). He was in judicial custody at Arthur Road Jail at the time of the order.

According to the prosecution, the informant was led to believe that More was involved in the share market business through a finance company named S. M. Finance. More allegedly assured fixed returns on investments and also claimed to invest a portion of the deposited amount in land transactions. Based on these representations, the informant and his son invested a total of ₹10,00,000. Initially, More allegedly provided returns amounting to ₹3,00,000 but subsequently ceased payments, leading to the lodging of a complaint alleging cheating and misappropriation.

More denied these allegations, claiming they were baseless and false. His counsel, Advocate Sartaj Pathan, argued that the Investigating Agency had failed to recover any material evidence related to the alleged transactions and that there was no documentary proof of any assurance of fixed returns. More claimed to have already returned a significant portion of the invested amount to the informant/investors and contended that the provisions of the MPID Act were not applicable. He also cited his ongoing health issues (diabetes) and asserted that no further custodial interrogation was necessary, expressing his willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The Investigating Officer, through Ld. SPP Malankar, opposed the bail application, stating that there was ample evidence of More’s involvement. The prosecution highlighted the potential involvement of a large sum of money, the recovery of bank details, the yet-to-be-recovered misappropriated amount, and the ongoing efforts to trace properties involved. However, the prosecution’s statement was silent on any contention that More, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence.

After hearing both sides, Judge Joshi framed the central point for determination as whether More was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

The defense counsel emphasized that the investigation was complete, and a chargesheet had been filed. They argued that nothing remained to be seized or recovered from More, all bank accounts had been frozen, no property was found in his name, and there was no document proving he was running the alleged scheme. The counsel contended that keeping More in jail would serve no purpose and cited the observations made in the case of Divya Deepak Parkhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra.

The Ld. SPP argued that the filing of the chargesheet was not sufficient grounds for bail, asserting that there was sufficient material indicating More’s involvement, including partial repayment which indirectly admitted his involvement.

Judge Joshi noted that the filing of the chargesheet indicated the completion of the investigation, representing a substantial change in circumstances. More had been in custody since April 28, 2023, for approximately three and a half months. The court acknowledged the dispute regarding the exact amount returned by More to the informant. While the complaint stated ₹3,00,000, More claimed to have returned ₹5,90,000 via bank transfer and ₹3,15,000 in cash. The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case, stating that it was subject to proof during the full trial.

Considering that the investigation was complete and More had been in custody for a significant period, Judge Joshi opined that no purpose would be served by his indefinite detention. The court also noted the Investigating Agency’s failure to trace and secure properties involved or belonging to More, while acknowledging the prosecution’s right to proceed against any such property under the MPID Act. The court reasoned that the recovery of misappropriated funds would not be facilitated by More’s continued imprisonment. Given that the witnesses appeared to reside within the court’s jurisdiction and the prosecution did not allege any criminal antecedents or likelihood of absconding, the court deemed further detention unnecessary.

Judge Joshi cited the observations of the Aurangabad Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in Divya Deepak Parkhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra and the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, both emphasizing that after the completion of the investigation and filing of the chargesheet, and in the absence of serious contentions regarding interference with the trial or tampering with evidence, prolonged detention is not in the interest of justice.

Applying these principles, the court found no hurdle to releasing More on bail, subject to stringent conditions to address the prosecution’s apprehensions.

The final order granted bail to Suhas Kisan More under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with the following conditions:

1. He shall be released on executing a PR bond of ₹1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) with one or two surety bonds of a like amount.
2. He is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of ₹1,00,000 for a period of three months.
3. He must make surety compliance before the concerned Court.
4. He shall attend each and every date of the trial without fail.
5. He shall undertake in writing not to tamper with further investigation or evidence and shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
6. He shall undertake in writing not to travel abroad without the permission of the concerned Court.
7. He shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Respondent/I.O. or it shall be retained if already seized.
8. He shall provide proof of his residential address along with the phone or cell numbers of his two close relatives to the Respondent/I.O.
9. He shall not alienate any valuable movable and immovable property in his name or in the name of his blood relatives without prior permission of the concerned/Ld. Trial Court.
10. Any breach of these conditions shall enable the Prosecution/Investigating Officer to apply for the cancellation of his bail.

The Respondent/I.O. was directed to take note of the order, and the Bail Application No. 576 of 2023 was disposed of accordingly. This order emphasizes the significance of the filing of the chargesheet in bail considerations and the court’s inclination against prolonged pre-trial detention when the investigation is complete and there is no substantial risk of interference with the trial or evidence.