Mumbai, Maharashtra – January 6, 2024 – The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, at the City Civil & Sessions Court in Mumbai, has rejected the bail application of Bapu Mohan Zambre, a 42-year-old driver. Zambre was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 81 of 2021 registered at Mulund Police Station for offenses under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, 1999. Her Honour Judge Aditee Uday Kadam passed the order on January 5, 2024, denying bail.
Prosecution Alleges Fraudulent Investment Scheme and Huge Default
The prosecution’s case alleges that Zambre and another accused, Avinash Popat Salve, launched a scheme called “Vijeta Lucky Draw,” collecting ₹1,000 per month from multiple depositors with the promise of ₹30,000 after 30 months, and an additional ₹30,000 for lucky winners by rotation. In October 2018, the accused, including Zambre, allegedly started an office under the name “MSOI Online Services Pvt. Ltd.” and introduced another scheme where depositors had to invest ₹77,500 to receive ₹7,00,000 after six months. The informant invested ₹77,500 in January 2019 but only received ₹20,000 until March 2019, after which the accused allegedly committed fraudulent default in repayment to the informant and other depositors. The investigation revealed a total fraudulent default of approximately ₹1,59,04,025.
Applicant Claims Delay in Arrest and Parity with Co-Accused
Advocate Nitin S. Borkar, representing Zambre, argued that the alleged offenses occurred between 2017 and 2020, but the FIR was registered on February 25, 2021, and Zambre was only arrested on November 8, 2023. This delay, according to the defense, indicated Zambre’s lack of involvement. It was also submitted that the charge sheet had been filed, and other main accused, who were directors of the company, had already been released on bail. The defense sought bail for Zambre based on parity.
Prosecution Emphasizes Zambre’s Crucial Role and Absconding Behavior
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande argued that the delay in lodging the report and arresting Zambre was not a valid ground for bail. The prosecution contended that Zambre’s role in the commission of the offense could not be equated with that of the other accused. While a charge sheet was filed against the other accused arrested earlier, Zambre was apprehended much later on November 8, 2023, indicating that he was avoiding arrest and not cooperating with the investigation. The prosecution asserted that Zambre was a Director of MSOI Online Services Pvt. Ltd. and played a crucial role in deceiving investors, who were primarily from poor economic backgrounds, in a scam amounting to a substantial sum.
Court Finds Zambre’s Role Crucial, Notes Absconding Behavior, and Disallows Parity
Judge Kadam, upon perusal of the record, noted that while the alleged offenses occurred between 2017 and 2020, the offense was revealed in 2021, leading to the registration of the FIR. The record indicated that Zambre, as Accused No. 2, was involved from the beginning, actively inducing investors by distributing pamphlets. While other accused were arrested in February 2022 and a charge sheet was filed against them, Zambre was traced and arrested much later in November 2023, suggesting he was evading arrest and not cooperating with the investigation.
The court prima facie found Zambre’s role to be crucial, possibly the “brain behind the scam,” and that he played an active part in its commission. The charge sheet against Zambre was yet to be filed. The court emphasized the significant amount of the scam (approximately ₹1.59 crore) and the fact that the deceived investors were from poor economic backgrounds. In these circumstances, the court deemed it necessary to investigate the matter thoroughly and recover the misappropriated amounts.
The court rejected the argument of parity, stating that Zambre’s role could not be equated with that of the other accused, especially considering his absconding behavior and non-cooperation with the investigation. The court also expressed concern that if released on bail, Zambre might flee from justice.
Conclusion: Bail Rejected Due to Crucial Role, Absconding Behavior, and Ongoing Investigation
Considering Zambre’s crucial role in the alleged scam, his conduct of avoiding arrest, the substantial amount involved, and the need for further investigation against him, the court found no grounds to grant bail. The bail application was accordingly rejected. The court directed the Investigating Officer to take note of the order.