Mumbai, Maharashtra – July 15, 2024 (Re-upload of Order dated August 2, 2023) – In a significant development in a case involving alleged fraudulent investment schemes, the Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, at the City Civil & Sessions Court in Mumbai, has granted bail to Smt. Pooja Vishant Bhoir, a 32-year-old businesswoman residing in Kalyan (West), Thane. The order, originally passed on August 2, 2023, by His Honour Judge Shri S. B. Joshi in Bail Application No. 436 of 2023, was re-uploaded on July 15, 2024, following corrections as per a subsequent court order.

Bhoir was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 124 of 2023 registered at Cuff Parade Police Station, Mumbai, for offenses punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3 of the MPID Act, 1999, which deals with the protection of depositors’ interests in cases of financial establishments defaulting in repayments.

Allegations of Fraudulent Investment Scheme and Default

The prosecution’s case against Bhoir and her husband, Vishant, centers around their business, “Algo Options Strategy Module.” According to the complaint filed by the informant, Bhoir and her husband allegedly assured handsome profits on investments made in their venture. Relying on these assurances, the informant and his wife invested a total of ₹16,00,000 (₹10,00,000 and ₹6,00,000) between November 2022 and March 2023.

However, the prosecution alleges that Bhoir only provided the investors with two weekly profit payments before allegedly ceasing communication and failing to repay the assured sum, even after a legal notice dated March 15, 2023, went unanswered. Consequently, the informant lodged a police report on May 12, 2023, leading to the registration of the aforementioned criminal case.

Applicant Claims Partial Repayment Attempt and Highlights Health Issues

In her bail application, Bhoir contested the prosecution’s narrative, stating that the complainant had received ₹1,00,000 via RTGS against the total investment of ₹16,00,000. She expressed her readiness and willingness to pay the remaining amount via a Demand Draft to be deposited in the court. Bhoir also claimed to have replied to the legal notice served upon her.

Furthermore, the applicant argued that the allegations did not simultaneously attract offenses under both the IPC and the MPID Act in the manner leveled. She contended that the dispute primarily pertained to a civil transaction and that all relevant documents related to the transactions were already in the possession of the Investigating Authority, leaving no further need for recovery.

A key argument presented by Bhoir’s counsel was that the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had already been filed. Keeping Bhoir in custody, especially considering her reported high blood pressure and the presence of her 8-year-old child, would serve no purpose. The applicant assured the court that there was no possibility of her absconding and expressed her willingness to abide by any conditions imposed for her release.

Prosecution Opposes Bail, Citing Large Scale Fraud and Potential Tampering

The Respondent/Ld. SPP vehemently opposed the bail application, asserting that Bhoir played a vital role in committing a significant fraud amounting to ₹2,66,50,000, impacting multiple investors. The prosecution argued that properties acquired through the alleged cheating were yet to be fully recovered and that releasing Bhoir could lead to the tampering of witnesses and her absconding.

However, the prosecution’s statement also revealed that a substantial sum of ₹-6,70,13,124 (a peculiar negative figure, likely indicating a net balance after debits or a data entry error) from Bhoir’s bank and demat accounts had been frozen. Additionally, the prosecution claimed that Bhoir was a habitual offender with a pending case in Nashik and had acted in concert with her husband, who is also an accused in the present crime. Two motor vehicles valued at ₹27,50,000 were also stated to have been seized from Bhoir. Despite these seizures, the prosecution maintained that detailed investigation was still outstanding.

Court Grants Bail, Emphasizing Charge Sheet Filing and Asset Seizure

After hearing both sides and considering the facts on record, Judge Joshi ruled in favor of granting bail to Smt. Pooja Vishant Bhoir. The court’s reasoning heavily relied on the fact that the charge sheet had already been filed, signifying the completion of the primary investigation.

The court acknowledged the prosecution’s submission regarding the seizure of movable properties, including the two vehicles, cash, and the frozen demat account, totaling the aforementioned significant (albeit unusually represented) amount. The court also noted Bhoir’s reply to the legal notice, indicating her willingness to repay the remaining invested amount before her arrest.

Drawing reference from the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision in Suresh G. Motwani Vs. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that criminal prosecution is intended to punish the guilty and not solely for the recovery of investors’ dues.

Crucially, the court cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s observations in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, emphasizing that ordinarily, accused persons should be released on bail during the trial stage, with the grant of bail being the rule and refusal the exception, underpinned by the sacrosanct presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court’s view that an accused’s presence in custody might not be necessary for further investigation once the charge sheet is filed was deemed applicable to Bhoir’s case.

While acknowledging the serious nature of the economic offenses alleged, the court found no strong likelihood of Bhoir absconding, considering her residence in Kalyan (W), Thane. Consequently, the court was inclined to grant bail, subject to stringent conditions to address the Investigating Agency’s apprehensions.

Bail Conditions Imposed

The court ordered the release of Smt. Pooja Vishant Bhoir on a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of ₹3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with one or two surety bonds of a like amount, subject to the following conditions:

i. Permission to furnish provisional cash bail of ₹3,00,000 for three months.

ii. Completion of surety compliance before the concerned Court’s Additional Traffic Headquarters (ATH).

iii.Mandatory attendance at each and every date of the trial.

iv. Written undertaking not to tamper with further investigation or evidence and not to pressurize the Respondent’s witnesses.

v. Written undertaking not to travel abroad without the concerned Court’s permission.

vi. Deposit of her passport (if any) with the Respondent/Investigating Officer (I.O.) or its retention by the Respondent if already seized.

vii.Provision of proof of her residential address along with the phone or cell numbers of her two close relatives to the Respondent/I.O.

viii. Prohibition on alienating any valuable movable and immovable property in her name or the name of her blood relatives without prior permission of the concerned/Ld. Trial Court.

ix. Breach of any of the above conditions would entitle the Prosecution/Investigating Officer to apply for the cancellation of her bail.

The court directed the Respondent/I.O. to take note of the order, and the Bail Application No. 436 of 2023 was accordingly disposed of. This order provides significant relief to Smt. Pooja Vishant Bhoir while imposing strict conditions to ensure her presence during the trial and prevent any obstruction of justice. The emphasis on the filing of the charge sheet as a crucial factor for granting bail aligns with established legal principles prioritizing an accused’s liberty once the primary investigation is complete.