Mumbai, August 25, 2023 (Gr. Bombay Special Court): The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, located at the City Civil & Sessions Court in Mumbai, has granted regular bail to Sanjay Krishna Borkar, a 51-year-old resident of Santacruz, Mumbai, in connection with an alleged investment fraud case.

The order, dated August 25, 2023, was passed by His Honour Judge Shri S. B. Joshi (Court Room No. 7) in Bail Application No. 699 of 2023. Borkar was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 148 of 2022, initially registered with MHB Colony Police Station (and subsequently investigated by EOW, Unit -8, Mumbai), for offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant, banker, merchant or agent), and 420¹ (cheating) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code,² 1860, and Sections 3 (fraudulent default by financial establishment) and 4 (offences and punishment) of the MPID Act, 1999.

Prosecution’s Case:

According to the FIR dated November 10, 2022, based on a complaint by Mrs. Neha Vikas Bhosale, the Directors of Chhetri Tradelink Private Limited Company, namely Dhanbahaddur @ Ravi Chhetri and Chirag Mohini, allegedly assured the complainant, her husband, and 29 other investors of handsome returns on investments with their company. They allegedly accepted investments totaling over ₹16 Crores from approximately 200 investors but failed to return the money as promised, thus causing cheating. The FIR specifically mentioned that between November 9, 2020, and February 2021, Dhanbahaddur @ Ravi Chhetri accepted ₹9,25,000 from the complainant’s husband and ₹93,13,600 from other investors. Initial returns were paid, but payments subsequently stopped.

Applicant’s Plea for Bail:

Mr. Borkar, through his advocate J. V. Tare-Patil, argued that he was falsely implicated. He contended that nothing incriminating was recovered from him, and there was no evidence of him inducing witnesses/investors, despite allegations to the contrary. He stated that all company transactions were through cheques and RTGS, and all relevant documents were already seized. He pointed out that his name was not in the FIR, and he was neither a Director nor an office bearer of Chhetri Tradelink Private Limited. He further highlighted that his immovable property worth ₹40 Lakhs and all his personal and company accounts were already seized, securing the investors’ interests. He denied involvement in any conspiracy and stated that no witness mentioned his role in inducing investments or receiving money. He had been in judicial custody since his arrest and argued for bail on merits and parity, noting that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary and he was a resident of Mumbai with no flight risk, ready to cooperate with the investigation.

Prosecution’s Opposition:

The prosecution, represented by Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande, opposed the bail, labeling the applicant a habitual offender involved in diverting investors’ funds to his and his relatives’ accounts. They alleged his involvement in a nationwide scheme, particularly in Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, and Orissa. The prosecution argued that his release could lead to witness intimidation, hamper further investigation, and that properties involved in the crime were yet to be secured.

Court’s Reasoning for Granting Bail:

Judge S. B. Joshi considered the submissions and the record. While the prosecution alleged that the applicant induced investors and benefited from misappropriated funds, the FIR primarily implicated the Directors, Dhanbahaddur @ Ravi Chhetri and Chirag Mohini, as the main beneficiaries. The court noted that one of the Directors, Chirag Mohini, had already been granted regular bail by the same court on May 2, 2023.

The court acknowledged the EOW’s claim of securing the applicant’s residential property in Virar, contradicting the SPP’s argument that no property related to the applicant had been secured. Additionally, 15 bank accounts were frozen, and cash and property belonging to the co-accused Chirag Mohini were also secured. While the applicant had a prior case (C.R. No. 435 of 2020 for cheating), the prosecution did not state any previous convictions.

The court observed that the applicant’s custodial interrogation was complete, and he had been in judicial custody since August 3, 2023. The case appeared to be based on documents already in the investigating agency’s possession. The court reasoned that the applicant could not be kept in jail indefinitely pending the arrest of other absconding accused, especially considering the co-accused was already on bail and the trial was likely to be lengthy.

Considering these aspects, the court found the applicant entitled to bail on merit and parity. To address the investigating agency’s concerns, stringent conditions were imposed.

The Order:

Judge S. B. Joshi passed the following order:

1. Bail Application No. 699 of 2023 is allowed, subject to the following conditions:
   • Mr. Sanjay Krishna Borkar shall be released on executing a PR Bond of ₹3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) with one or two solvent sureties of a like amount in C.R. No. 148 of 2022 (EOW C.R. No. 1086 of 2022).
   • He is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of ₹3,00,000 for three months.
   • Surety compliance to be made before the concerned Court.
   • He shall attend every trial date without fail.
   • He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence or pressurize any witness.
   • He shall record his attendance with the Respondent/I.O. every Friday between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. until the charge sheet is filed.
   • He shall cooperate in the investigation whenever required.
   • He shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
   • He shall submit his proper residential address proof and telephone/cell numbers with the Respondent/I.O.
   • He shall submit his passport with the Respondent/I.O. if he possesses one.
   • He shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
   • He shall not alienate, transfer, sell, mortgage, or create any third-party interest in his or his close blood relatives’ movable and immovable properties related to his Financial Establishment.
   • Any breach of these conditions will lead to the cancellation of his bail.
2. The Respondent/I.O. was directed to take note of the order.
3. Bail Application No. 699 of 2023 was disposed of accordingly.

This order highlights the court’s consideration of parity with a co-accused already on bail, the completion of custodial interrogation, and the securing of assets while granting bail, subject to stringent conditions to ensure the applicant’s cooperation and prevent any obstruction of justice.