Mumbai, March 7, 2024 (Gr. Bombay Special Court): The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, situated at the City Civil & Sessions Court in Mumbai, has rejected the regular bail application of Shyam Shankar Ram Pratap Maurya, a 57-year-old businessman accused in a fraud case involving Shyam Co-operative Credit Society Ld.

The order, dated March 7, 2024, was passed by Her Honour Judge Aditee Uday Kadam in Court Room No. 7, addressing Bail Application No. 124 of 2024. Maurya was booked 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, as well as Section 3 of the MPID Act, 1999, in connection with C.R. No. 599 of 2023 registered at Kurar Village Police Station.

Allegations Against the Applicant:

The prosecution’s case, in brief, alleged that from 2011 to June 2023, the informant and other members invested substantial amounts with Shyam Co-operative Credit Society Ld. at the behest of the applicant, Shyam Shankar Ram Pratap Maurya (Accused No. 2). It was alleged that Maurya used these funds for his personal profit, thereby misappropriating funds and cheating the investors for unlawful gain.

Applicant’s Plea for Bail:

Advocate Jivaraj S. Andhale, representing the applicant, argued that the dispute was related to banking transactions. He stated that the bank was temporarily closed following the demise of his wife, which caused panic among investors, leading them to lodge a complaint. The defense claimed that the bank’s transactions were smooth for a long period without any complaints and that the applicant never intended to cheat the investors. Advocate Andhale also mentioned that the Investigating Agency had seized three accounts of the applicant and argued that the arrest of other accused should not be a ground to detain his client. He further submitted that Maurya was ready to return the investors’ amounts in installments and was therefore entitled to bail.

Prosecution and Intervenor’s Strong Opposition:

Ld. SPP Ms. Chaitrali Panshikar and Ld. Advocate Gaurav Tiwari, representing the intervenor (Mr. Vinayak Aba Kumbhar), jointly opposed the bail application. They pointed out that the offense was registered on October 6, 2023, but the applicant was arrested only on January 27, 2024, indicating he was absconding. They further stated that other members of the society were Maurya’s close relatives and were also beneficiaries. The prosecution and intervenor highlighted that the investors, who belonged to poor financial backgrounds and were small-scale traders, had their hard-earned money stuck for the past 3-4 years. They also informed the court that cheques issued by the applicant to return the amounts were dishonored, leading to more than 12 pending criminal cases against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution argued that the investigation was ongoing, with the possibility of an increase in the number of investors and the amount involved. They contended that if released on bail, Maurya might tamper with prosecution evidence.

Court’s Reasoning for Rejecting Bail:

Her Honour Judge Aditee Uday Kadam, after perusing the record, stated that the prima facie involvement of the applicant in the alleged offense was no longer in doubt. The court noted the involvement of a significant amount of public funds and the targeting of small-scale traders from poor financial backgrounds whose hard-earned money was stuck. The dishonored cheques issued by the applicant were seen as prima facie evidence of intentional wrongdoing. The court also took note of the applicant’s conduct of absconding. Furthermore, the ongoing investigation and the fact that other accused were yet to be apprehended raised concerns about potential tampering with evidence or the applicant fleeing from justice if released on bail. Considering all these aspects, the court concluded that the applicant was not entitled to the relief claimed.

The Order:

Her Honour Judge Aditee Uday Kadam passed the following order:

1. The present Bail Application No. 124 of 2024 filed by the Applicant Shyam Shankar Ram Pratap Maurya in connection with C.R. No. 599 of 2023 registered with Kurar Village Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 3 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 is hereby rejected.
2. The present Bail Application No. 124 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

The rejection of bail signifies the court’s serious view of the allegations against Maurya and the potential impact on the investors. The ongoing investigation and the applicant’s past conduct played a significant role in the decision. The case will now proceed with further investigation and legal proceedings.