:1:
Order in BA no. 937/23
MHCC020158482023
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.937 OF 2023
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.1294 OF 2023
Ranjit Shamrao Jadhav
Aged : 38 years, Occ : Business
Residing at Flat No. B-804, Sr. No. 131/1,
Sai Tirupati Greens, Alandi Road,
Charholi Khurd, Pune-412105.
(presently at Arthur Road prisoner)
]
]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Sr. Police Inspector,
Cyber Police Station, Mumbai)
]
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Sandesh Jaybhay for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI S. B. JOSHI
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 4th November, 2023.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused
Ranjit Shamrao Jadhav resident of Pune, under Section 439 of
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in
connection with C.R. No. 166 of 2022 registered with Cyber
:2:
Order in BA no. 937/23
Police Station, Mumbai (C.R. No.225 of 2022 registered with
Pantanagar Police Station) for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred as “IPC”) as well as Sections 3 and 4 of of
The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999
(hereinafter referred to as “M.P.I.D. Act”) and Section 66D of
Information Technology Act (hereinafter referred as “IT Act”).
2.

As per the F.I.R. registered in this case on the basis of first
information given by Chhabu Ganapat Ighe, the present crime has
been registered against 5 accused named therein. The crime has
been registered against present Applicant. The allegations are as
regard commission of the offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 3
and 4 of of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors
Act, 1999 and Section 66D of Information Technology Act. Thus,
according to first informant these accused have committed
cheating
and
caused
economic
loss
to
the
tune
of
Rs.2,86,88,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Six Lakhs Eighty
Eight Thousand only).
3.

By moving this application, Applicant denied all
allegations made in the F.I.R. According to him, there is delay in
lodging the F.I.R. as the transaction in question with the Company
is pertaining to the year 2017-2018. Secondly, while causing his
arrest no notice under Section 41-A of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been given to him. One of the co-accused in
this crime is already released on bail and on these ground, he is
liable to be released on bail. He further added that none of the
:3:
Order in BA no. 937/23
offences as alleged attracts and he has no connection with the
allegations. His name is not appearing in the F.I.R. but he came to
be arrested during investigation. There is no material against him
to show that he was involved in the alleged crime. The coaccused namely Ganesh Sagar has been also released by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No(s).
268 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 and this Court also. Thus, he
submitted that he is ready to co-operate with the investigation
and therefore, submitted for releasing him on bail, on parity.
4.

The Prosecution through EOW objected this application by
filing reply at Exhibit No.2 on ground that there is ample
evidence against the present Applicant showing his involvement
in the alleged crime. One of the witnesses namely Aslam Abdul
Gani Malik has invested a sum of Rs. 9,92,000/- (Rupees Nine
Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand only) and out of that a sum of Rs.2
Lakhs has been transferred by him in the bank account of the wife
of the present Applicant namely Puja Jadhav. Likewise the present
Applicant had returned a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs in shape of cash
amount, cheque and by Coins to witness Aslam Abdul Gani Malik.
Thus, the Applicant appears beneficiary. If the Applicant came to
be released on bail then there is possibility of his fleeing away as
well as he will tamper the investigation which is yet to be
completed and he will tamper the witnesses also. The end use of
amount under defraud is also traced out. Likewise, the movable
and immovable properties standing in the name of Applicant are
to be traced out. Thus, they prayed for rejection of the present
application.

:4:
Order in BA no. 937/23
Heard Ld. Counsel for the Applicant who submitted in the
5.

light of submission in this application. He further added that
Applicant is only agent as well as one of the investors but he is
not Director / employee / partner of the Company in question.
Similar type of offences came to be registered against him in the
Police Station at Pune in which he has been released. Likewise
one of the co-accused namely Ganesh Sagar has been released on
bail on 19.04.2022. Therefore, on ground of parity, present
application is moved. Thus, on these ground, the Ld. Counsel for
the Applicant submitted for releasing Applicant on bail.
In rebuttal, Ld. SPP submitted that Applicant contending
6.

himself as an agent of the Company. During investigation the
Investigating Authority has collected ample evidence against the
Applicant as stated in the say of EOW. One of the witnesses is
saying about depositing amount under investment in the account
of wife of the Applicant. Thus, the present Applicant is beneficiary
one. Thus, Ld. SPP submitted that as stated in the say of EOW,
present application deserves to be rejected.
In the light of rival pleadings by the parties following points
7.

arise for my determination and findings are given for the reasons
mentioned thereunder are as follows:Sr.
No
1.

2.

POINTS
FINDINGS
Whether the Applicant Ranjit Shamrao
Jadhav is entitled for his release under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as prayed?

In the negative.

What Order ?

As per final order.

:5:
Order in BA no. 937/23
REASONS
As to point nos. 1 and 2 :
8.

After considering rival contentions, the Applicant at first
claims innocence and secondly submits that he has not taken
single money from the complainant / first informant on his own
account. Thus, he denied all the allegations constituting alleged
offences and his involvement therein except contending that only
he attended the meetings in relation to Buxcoin at Jalsa Hotel in
which the first informant was also one of the attendants. He did
not inform the first informant about the scheme in question.
According to him, the other persons / attendants namely Anuj
Kumar Oza, Vikas Chavan, Rajeet Jadhav, Prakash Chaudhary and
Afroz Shaikh had informed about scheme to the first informant
and also assured that they would become millionaires. So alleged
investment of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty
Thousand only) has been made on their say by the first
informant. It also shows that other investors namely Ashfaq
Shaikh, Mohd. Irfan Shaikh, R. K. Enterprises, R. R. Jewellary
have invested a sum totaling to Rs.2,86,88,000/- (Rupees Two
Crores Eighty Six Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand only).

9.

Thirdly, he claims that one of the co-accused namely Ganesh
Shivkumar Sagar has been released on regular bail by the order
of this Court as such on parity he claims his release.

10.

However, the allegations in the F.I.R. clearly shows that this
Applicant and co-accused had assured the first informant and
investors that on investing sum, they would become millionaires.

:6:
Order in BA no. 937/23
Thus, the amount under alleged fraud is stated to be invested. As
per the say of the EOW, during investigation it is found /
transpired that out of sum of Rs.9,92,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs
Ninety Two Thousand only) invested by the witness Aslam Abdul
Gani Malik, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) has
been found in the bank account of his wife. So this Applicant is
stated to be one of the beneficiaries as discloses from the entry in
his bank account. Coming to the facts of the instant matter, the
alleged
misappropriated
amount
is
to
the
tune
of
Rs.2,86,88,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Six Lakhs Eighty
Eight Thousand only). Investigation of the offences is not yet
over. The detailed information are yet to be collected on various
aspects involved in relation to the transactions in question. The
investigation in respect of fraud involved is going on and chargesheet is yet to be filed. The E.O.W. / Investigating Officer has
placed material to show that there is nexus between the alleged
act constituting the offences in question and the Applicant and
other co-accused involved in the crime. It is one of the
contentions that the alleged offences under IPC and MPID Act did
not attract, but in this regard, it is noteworthy to notice that
unless and until investigation not completed, no comment
thereon can be made at this juncture more particularly when it is
alleged that the Applicant and other co-accused had induced the
first informant with rosy picture and made unviable promise /
assurance to them. Therefore, prima faice the mala fide intention
of the Applicant is at large on the face of record. As per the
averments in the say of E.O.W. / Ld. SPP there is prima facie
material against the Applicant. Considering the aspect that
:7:
Order in BA no. 937/23
investigation is going on and is yet to be completed, the
Prosecution picture can not be said clear at this juncture. The role
of the Applicant is under the investigation and it will be cleared
only after completion of investigation. Though, one of the coaccused is stated to be released on bail but his role appears
different than the role of the present Applicant. In the bail order
of co-accused Ganesh Sagar by this Court it has observed that the
Investigating Authority could not trace out any particular amount
to him. But here as per say of EOW, he appears beneficiaries. So
question of parity does not arise considering the facts and
circumstances against present Applicant and his role attributed in
alleged incident. Therefore, no case is made out to grant the bail
to the Applicant. As such the Point No.1 is answered in the
negative.
In view of reasoning and findings to Point No.1 as above, the
application is deserves to be rejected. As such Point No.2 is
answered as per following order :ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No. 937 of 2023 filed by the
applicant Ranjit Shamrao Jadhav in connection with C.R. No. 166
of 2022 registered with Cyber Police Station, Mumbai (C.R.
No.225 of 2022 registered with Pantanagar Police Station) for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 3 and 4 of of The
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 and
Section 66D of Information Technology Act is hereby rejected.

2. Accordingly, Respondent/I.O. to take the note of this order.
3. The present Bail Application No. 937 of 2023 stands disposed of
accordingly.

:8:
Order in BA no. 937/23
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
Digitally signed
by SANJAY
BHALCHANDRA
JOSHI
Date:
2023.11.04
17:25:35 +0530
Date : 04.11.2023.

Directly Dictated on
Draft given on
Signed on
: 04.11.2023.
: 04.11.2023.
: 04.11.2023.

( S. B. Joshi)
Designated Judge and Addl.
Sessions Judge, City Civil &
Sessions Court, Mumbai.

:9:
Order in BA no. 937/23
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
04.11.2023 at 5.17 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Ms. R. D. Tari
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. S. B. Joshi
C.R. No.07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
04.11.2023
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
04.11.2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on
04.11.2023