Mumbai, April 23, 2025 – In a significant development in the ongoing investigation into a multi-crore investment fraud case, the Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, situated at the City Civil & Sessions Court in Mumbai, has granted bail to one of the accused, Pradeep Suryabhan Upadhayay. The order, dated November 23, 2023, was issued by His Honour Judge Shri S. B. Joshi in Bail Application No. 1002 of 2023.

Upadhayay, a 38-year-old businessman residing in Bhandup (W), Mumbai, was implicated in a case registered at the Mulund Police Station (C.R. No. 81 of 2021) concerning alleged fraudulent activities perpetrated through an investment scheme. The prosecution’s case, as outlined in the First Information Report (FIR), revolves around a scheme initially launched by co-accused Avinash Popat Salve and Bapu Mohan Zambre under the name “Vijeta Lucky Draw.” This scheme allegedly collected ₹1,000 per month from numerous depositors with the promise of a ₹30,000 return after 30 months, along with a chance to win an additional ₹30,000 through a rotational lucky draw.

The FIR further detailed that in October 2018, Salve and Zambre, along with Harshad Parad and the present applicant, Pradeep Upadhayay, established an office under the banner of “MSOI Online Services Pvt. Ltd.” in Mulund (W). This entity introduced a new scheme wherein depositors were asked to invest ₹77,500 with the lure of receiving ₹7,00,000 within six months. The first informant claimed to have invested ₹77,500 in January 2019 and received ₹20,000 until March 2019, after which the repayments allegedly ceased, leading to accusations of fraudulent defraud by the co-accused and Upadhayay.

The investigation revealed that the total amount involved in the alleged fraudulent activities amounted to a staggering ₹1,59,04,025. Consequently, a case was registered against the accused under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent)¹ read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999.

In his bail application, Upadhayay vehemently denied all allegations, asserting that he held no directorial or any other position in “MSOI Online Services Pvt. Ltd.” and did not benefit financially from the alleged scheme. His counsel, Advocate Ganesh Gupta along with Advocate Sahil Ghorpade, argued that there was no substantive material linking him to the crime and that he was falsely implicated. They contended that the essential elements of the alleged offenses, such as cheating and entrustment, were absent in his case. Furthermore, citing the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and referencing various case laws, they pleaded for his release.

The prosecution, represented by Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande, strongly opposed the bail application. They argued that the investigation had revealed Upadhayay’s involvement, claiming he appeared to be a Director of “MSOI Online Services Pvt. Ltd.” and had accepted money from the first informant and other witnesses. The prosecution expressed concerns about potential tampering with witnesses, threats to them, the possibility of the applicant fleeing, and obstruction of further investigation, including the potential disposal of properties owned by him.

After hearing both sides, Judge Joshi meticulously reviewed the application, the FIR copy, and other relevant materials. The court observed that the FIR indicated the primary accused to be Avinash Salve and Bapu Zambre. While Upadhayay’s name was mentioned, the allegations against him were primarily of assisting the other co-accused in launching earlier schemes.

Crucially, the court noted that the prosecution’s reply was silent on whether Upadhayay had personally benefited from the defrauded amount or had acquired any property through it. It was also acknowledged that no property had been seized from him. The court further took cognizance of the fact that a chargesheet had already been filed against Avinash Salve, who had subsequently been granted bail. Another co-accused, Harshad Parad, was released during the investigation itself due to a lack of material indicating personal financial gain or property acquisition, and also considering his clean criminal record.

Drawing a parallel with the release of Harshad Parad, the defense counsel argued for parity, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dharmendra Singh V/s State of Madhya Pradesh.

While the Ld. Prosecutor argued that the ground of parity was inapplicable due to the alleged ample material against Upadhayay and the ongoing further investigation (under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the court found this argument unpersuasive. Judge Joshi noted that despite the ongoing investigation, the prosecution had the right to pursue any properties under the MPID Act even if none were seized from Upadhayay yet.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the allegations against Upadhayay did not specifically state that he received investment money directly from the complainants. The offenses leveled against him (Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of MPID Act) do not carry the punishment of death or life imprisonment, nor does the alleged offense under Section 409 IPC.

Considering these aspects, particularly the release of the co-accused Harshad Parad under similar circumstances, Judge Joshi concluded that Upadhayay was also entitled to bail on the ground of parity and merit. However, acknowledging the prosecution’s apprehension regarding the ongoing investigation, the court imposed stringent conditions on his release.

The court’s final order granted bail to Pradeep Suryabhan Upadhayay subject to the following conditions:

1. He shall be released on executing a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties of the like amount.
2. He is permitted to furnish a provisional cash bail of ₹1,00,000/- for a period of three months.
3. He must complete the surety compliance before the concerned Court.
4. He shall attend the Mulund Police Station every Sunday between 8:00 am and 12:00 noon until the filing of the supplementary chargesheet against him.
5. He shall not leave Mumbai City without informing the Investigating Officer.
6. He shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
7. He shall attend each and every date of the trial without fail.
8. He shall not tamper or hamper the prosecution witnesses and evidence, nor shall he pressurize any prosecution witness in any manner.
9. He shall co-operate in the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.
10. He shall submit his proper and verifiable residential address proof, as well as telephone and cell numbers, to the Respondent/Investigating Officer for contact.
11. He shall submit his passport, if any, to the Respondent/Investigating Officer.
12. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
13. He shall provide details of all properties owned by him within ten days of his release and shall not alienate them without the due permission of the Special Court.
14. Any breach of these conditions will entitle the Prosecution/Investigating Officer to apply for the cancellation of his bail.
15. The Respondent/Investigating Officer is directed to take note of the order.

The Bail Application No. 1002 of 2023 was accordingly disposed of. The order was pronounced in open court on November 23, 2023, and subsequently signed and uploaded.

This bail order marks a significant stage in the investigation of the multi-crore fraud case, highlighting the court’s emphasis on parity and the presumption of innocence while also ensuring the accused’s cooperation with the ongoing investigation and adherence to strict conditions. The focus now shifts to the further investigation and the potential filing of a supplementary chargesheet against Upadhayay, as the legal proceedings continue to unfold.