Mumbai, April 9, 2025 (Thane News Bureau): 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 bail application of Alok Sukhdev Pramanick, a 43-year-old service professional accused in a significant investment fraud case amounting to over ₹1.06 crore. The order, passed on March 19, 2024, by Her Honour Judge Aditee Uday Kadam in Court Room No. 7, has kept Pramanick in custody in connection with C.R. No. 610 of 2023 registered at the Amboli Police Station.
Pramanick, a resident of Andheri (West), Mumbai, is implicated in a case involving allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation under Sections 406, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the stringent MPID Act.
The prosecution’s case, as outlined in the court order, alleges that between November 2022 and February 2023, Pramanick induced the informant and other investors to invest in various schemes offered by ‘Swami Krupa Business Solution Pvt. Ltd.’ (referred to as “FE”) under the guise of gold schemes and other investment plans. The investors were allegedly promised lucrative returns within a short period of 30 days.
Relying on Pramanick’s assurances, the investors reportedly entrusted substantial sums of money. This included ₹21,51,000 in cash and 15 gold coins weighing 10 grams each, valued at ₹8,10,000, all handed over directly to Pramanick. Additionally, a significant amount was invested through online transactions, culminating in a total investment of ₹1,06,52,000 by the affected individuals through the informant.
Despite repeated follow-ups by the investors, they allegedly received no returns on their investments. This led them to believe that Pramanick had defrauded them, acting with the malicious intent to deceive them and secure unlawful financial gains. Consequently, a police report was filed, leading to the registration of C.R. No. 610 of 2023.
During the hearing of Bail Application No. 1102 of 2023, Advocate P. D. Desai appeared for the applicant, while Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande represented the State/Respondent. Advocate Avinash Zodage represented the original complainant as an intervenor in the proceedings.
Advocate Desai argued for Pramanick’s release, asserting that his client was merely an employee, specifically a driver, at ‘Swami Krupa Business Solution Pvt. Ltd.’ He further contended that the informant’s role in the alleged scheme was questionable and highlighted the fact that other directors of the company had not been arrested. The defense also pointed to a significant delay between the alleged commission of the offense (November 2022 to February 2023) and the filing of the police report (July 28, 2023), casting doubt on the prosecution’s narrative.
Moreover, Advocate Desai emphasized that with the filing of the charge-sheet, the investigation was ostensibly complete, representing a change in circumstances since the rejection of Pramanick’s anticipatory bail application. He argued a lack of proper investigation and a missing money trail directly linking the accused to the misappropriated funds. In a rejoinder, the defense claimed that directors of the company were absconding and presented documents purportedly showing returns of some amounts to investors’ accounts. It was also stated that ₹25 lakhs was invested through Pramanick, against which a substantial amount was returned. The defense also noted that statements of other investors were yet to be recorded and alleged that the first informant’s investments in immovable properties were not investigated. Based on these grounds, the defense argued that Pramanick’s prima facie involvement in the alleged offense was questionable and sought his release on bail.
However, Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande vehemently opposed the bail application. She informed the court that one of the directors of ‘Swami Krupa Business Solution Pvt. Ltd.’ had already been arrested and highlighted the previous rejection of Pramanick’s anticipatory bail on its merits. The prosecution argued that there was documentary evidence indicating that investors had invested their hard-earned money in ‘FE’ through Pramanick. The Investigating Officer submitted that bank account verifications revealed that investors had not received any returns from Pramanick’s account. The court was also informed that further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was ongoing. The Ld. SPP asserted that the prosecution had established Pramanick’s involvement in a serious economic offense and urged the court to reject his bail plea.
After considering the arguments from both sides and perusing the case records, Her Honour Judge Aditee Uday Kadam delivered the oral order, ultimately rejecting Pramanick’s bail application.
The court noted specific averments in the police report stating that investors, including the informant, had invested money through Pramanick, who was employed as a driver at ‘FE’. While acknowledging that the investors were initially induced by the directors of ‘FE’, the court highlighted Pramanick’s alleged active role in persuading them to invest through him by falsely claiming he could secure discounts and better returns due to his employment. The court observed that documents collected during the investigation revealed significant amounts being credited to Pramanick’s account, which were not subsequently returned to the investors. The Investigating Officer also pointed out that the money trail for the funds transferred to Pramanick’s account was yet to be fully traced.
While acknowledging the defense’s criticism of the investigation, the court cited the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Nikhil Ashokrao Waghamare and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. regarding the Investigating Officer’s duty to examine relevant material. However, the court stated that this did not directly impact the prima facie evidence presented by the prosecution establishing Pramanick’s involvement in the alleged serious offense, especially considering the ongoing investigation.
The court concluded that a prima facie connection of Pramanick with the alleged large-scale financial scam was established. It noted that the investigation was not yet complete, recoveries were pending, and the property shown by Pramanick was purportedly acquired using funds from ‘FE’, thus not constituting a return of investments to the victims.
Judge Kadam emphasized the well-established legal principle that “economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”
Based on the clear prima facie involvement of Pramanick in the alleged serious economic offense, indicating he had allegedly duped multiple investors for unlawful gain, and considering that other accused, including a director of ‘FE’, had been arrested with others still at large, the court deemed the investigation to be complex and not solely reliant on documentary evidence. Consequently, the court found Pramanick not entitled to the relief of bail.
Therefore, Bail Application No. 1102 of 2023 was rejected, and Pramanick will remain in judicial custody as the investigation progresses. The order was pronounced in open court on March 19, 2024.