Mumbai, May 6, 2023 – The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act) at the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, presided over by His Honour Judge Shri S. M. Tapkire (Court Room No. 7), has granted conditional bail to Mr. Chirag Jayesh Mohini, a 32-year-old businessman. Mohini was an accused in C.R. No. 148 of 2022 (originally C.R. No. 1086 of 2022 registered with MHB Colony Police Station, later transferred to EOW, Unit-8 Mumbai) for offences punishable under Sections 406 (Criminal breach of trust), 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), and 420 (Cheating) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act. The oral order was pronounced on May 2, 2023, and the signed copy was uploaded on May 6, 2023.

Ld. Advocate Tarepatil appeared for the Applicant, and Ld. SPP V. C. Malankar represented the State.

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution’s case, based on the complaint of Mrs. Neha Vikash Bhosale, alleges that her husband’s acquaintance, Zakir Shaikh, introduced them to Chhetri Tradelink Private Limited Company, claiming it offered a 10% return after TDS deduction on investments and was involved in profitable businesses like ayurvedic products, perfumes, and import-export. Initially, the complainants invested ₹25,000 with the accused, who were Directors of the company, and received the promised return within 15 days. Subsequently, they invested ₹9 lakhs in a 6-month scheme with a promised 32% annual interest. However, the accused later failed to pay the principal and returns, thus committing the alleged crime. The complaint stated that over 200 depositors had invested in the company, and the accused had misappropriated a large sum of ₹16 Crores.

Applicant’s Arguments for Bail:

The applicant sought bail, primarily arguing that the FIR did not contain serious allegations against him. He contended that the informant only inquired with him about the non-payment of the principal and returns, without any specific allegations of wrongdoing. Based on this, he requested to be released on bail.

Prosecution’s Opposition:

The State strongly opposed the bail, arguing that the applicant was a Director of the implicated company and a beneficiary of the siphoned-off funds. They claimed the company assured high interest returns but reneged on its promises and misappropriated the deposited amounts. The prosecution stated that approximately 2000 alleged depositors had approached them and cited the seriousness and gravity of the crime, the applicant’s active involvement and specific role, as reasons for denying bail.

Court’s Analysis and Findings:

The Court, after considering the rival submissions and the available record, noted that the impugned crime involved only two accused. The applicant was allegedly a Director of Chhetri Tradelink Private Limited, which purportedly accepted deposits with assurances of high returns. While the record indicated that accused No. 1 was the principal architect of the crime, the allegations against the applicant were primarily that the complainants contacted him after accused No. 1, Dhanbahaddur @ Ravi Tankbahaddur Chhetri, failed to return the principal and interest. The applicant was arrested on March 20, 2023, concerning a crime dated November 10, 2022.

The Court observed that the allegations against the applicant appeared to be mere and bare. In light of these allegations, the Court felt that further custodial detention of the applicant was not essential or necessary for any purpose, especially as the alleged grievance and accusation against the applicant and the other accused were likely related to documentary evidence. The Court did not find any serious, considerable, or cognizable reasons for the applicant’s continued detention. However, considering the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the need for further investigation, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant subject to stringent conditions.

Order of the Court:

His Honour Judge Shri S. M. Tapkire passed the following order:

1. The present Bail Application No. 257 of 2023 is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions by the applicant /accused: i. The applicant Chirag Jayesh Mohini, residing at the mentioned address and currently detained in Taloja Jail, shall be released on executing a PR Bond of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) and furnishing one or two solvent sureties in the like amount in connection with C.R. No. 148 of 2022 (EOW) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act. ii. The applicant shall not tamper or hamper the prosecution witnesses and evidence, nor shall he pressurize any prosecution witness in any manner. iii. The applicant shall record his attendance with the Respondent/I.O. every Friday between 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. until the filing of the charge sheet. iv. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation as and whenever required for interrogation. v. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. vi. The applicant shall submit his proper and considerable residential address proof, as well as telephone and cell numbers, with the Respondent/I.O. for contact purposes. vii. The applicant shall submit his passport with the Respondent/I.O. if he possesses one. viii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity. ix. The applicant shall not alienate, transfer, sell, mortgage, or create any third-party interest over any movable and immovable properties in the name of his Financial Establishment, himself, and his immediate blood relatives in any manner. x. In case of disobedience or breach of any of these conditions by the applicant, this order will be liable to be canceled.
2. Accordingly, the Respondent/I.O. is directed to take note of this order.
3. The present Bail Application No. 257 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly.

The granting of conditional bail in this MPID Act case reflects the Court’s consideration of the seemingly limited direct allegations against the applicant compared to the principal accused, while still acknowledging the seriousness of the economic offences and imposing stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the ongoing investigation and prevent any potential obstruction of justice.