:1:
Order in BA no. 576/23
MHCC020100122023
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.576 OF 2023
IN
C. R. NO. 148 OF 2023
Suhas Kisan More
Aged : 33 years, Occ : Unemployed
Residing at 103, Building No.59,
Thermal CHS Ltd Nehru Nagar Kurla,
Mumbai- 400 024.
(At Present in Judicial Custody Arthur Road Jail)
]
]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Nehru Nagar Police Station)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Sartaj Pathan for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Malankar for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI S. B. JOSHI
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 11th August, 2023.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the applicant Suhas
Kisan More resident of Nehru Nagar Kurla, Mumbai under
Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of
regular bail in connection with C.R. No.148 of 2023 registered
:2:
Order in BA no. 576/23
with Nehru Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred as “IPC”) and Section 3 of The Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (hereinafter
referred to as “M.P.I.D. Act”).
2.

The case of the prosecution is that the informant had been
came to learn that the applicant deals in the business of making
investment in share market who is having finance Company
namely S. M. Finance and he represented that on making
investment he will give returns at fix rate and also assured that
he will invest certain amount out of the deposit in the
transactions of land. Thus, the informant and his son have made
investment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) in all. In
meantime, the applicant gave him return to the tune of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). But later on, he
stopped to give returns to him. This resulted in cheating with
him. As such report came to be lodged contending that he
thereby cheated and his amount has been misappropriated. Thus,
crime in question came to be registered against the applicant.

3.

The applicant denied this story in toto. He further contended
that allegations are baseless and false. The Investigating Agency
has failed to recover material related with alleged transaction.
There is nothing in shape of document to show that he assured
for giving returns. He has returned the amount to the informant /
investors by giving details. The provision of MPID Act does not
attract. Since, arrest he is in jail. He suffering from diabetes. No
custodial interrogation needed now. He is ready to abide with
:3:
Order in BA no. 576/23
conditions. Thus, he prayed to release him on bail.
The Investigating Officer through Ld. SPP objected this
4.

application by filing say at Exh.02, on ground that there is ample
evidence in respect of involvement of the applicant. There is
possibility of huge amount involved in the crime. All the bank
details have been recovered. The amount under misappropriation
is yet to be recovered. By causing cheating, he has committed the
offence under MPID Act. The details of property involved are yet
to be traced out. Thus, the respondent prayed for rejection of the
application. The say is totally silent to show any contention that
of the Respondent that the applicant, if released on bail, would
interfere with the trial or tamper with the evidence.
Heard both sides. In the light of facts and circumstances
5.

coupled with submissions following points arise for my
determination and findings are given for the reasons mentioned
thereunder are as follows:Sr.
No
POINTS
FINDINGS
1.

Whether the applicant Suhas Kisan More In the affirmative.
is entitled for his release under Section
439 of Cr.P.C. as prayed?

2.

What Order ?

As per final order.
REASONS
As to point nos. 1 and 2 :
6.

The crux of the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the
applicant is that the investigation is over and charge-sheet has
:4:
Order in BA no. 576/23
been filed. Nothing is remained to be seized or recovered from
the applicant. Entire bank accounts have been freezed. No
property is found in the name of the applicant. No single
document to show that applicant is running the scheme in
question. No purpose will be solved by keeping the applicant
behind bars. The applicant is ready to abide with conditions.
Thus, Ld. Counsel prayed for release of the applicant in view of
observation in the decision in the case of Divya Deepak Parkhe
Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Bail Application No.(s) 914 of
2020 to 916 of 2020 dated 16.02.2021.
7.

Ld. SPP submitted that filing of the charge-sheet is no
ground to claim bail as there is sufficient material to show
involvement of the applicant. The applicant by making part
payment in return has indirectly admitted his involvement in the
crime. So Ld. SPP submitted for rejection of the application.

8.

In the backdrop, it has to state that the charge-sheet is filed
against the applicant. Thus, it appears that investigation is over.
The proceedings for collecting details of bank account have been
obtained and further steps regarding its seizure is in process. The
charge-sheet being filed itself is a substantial change in
circumstances. The applicant is in custody since 28.04.2023. So
this application has to be considered on merits in view of filing of
charge-sheet and also it is to be seen whether the applicant
should be continued in custody even after investigation is over.
The perusal of the complaint shows that out of total investment
of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), the applicant has
paid him Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) This is
:5:
Order in BA no. 576/23
disputed by the applicant contending that he has returned
Rs.5,90,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety Thousand only) by the
bank transfer and rs.3,15,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifteen
Thousand only) by way of cash. This prima facie shows that the
applicant is not denying that he was involved in the transaction in
dispute with the informant. The fact remains that the informant
has received certain amount initially. In this regard up to mention
that since the allegations are made against the allegations and
case is based on documents this is subject to proof which require
full pledge trial. At this juncture, it can not be justifiable to
comment on merits of the case which is subject to proof.
9.

In this set of facts, the applicant is arrested on 28.04.2023
and he is in judicial custody
for last three and half months.

Investigation is complete. No purpose will be served by keeping
the applicant behind bars for indefinite period. The trial would
take its own time to conclude for the reasons best known the
Investigating Agency has failed to trace out and secure the
properties involved in the transaction and also belonging to the
applicant, even then the prosecution has right to proceed against
the property if any, on contemplated under MPID Act. The money
under misappropriation can not be recovered by keeping the
applicant in prison. The witnesses appears residing within the
jurisdiction of this Court. So further detention of the applicant
appears unnecessary. In this circumstances, it will be useful to
quote the observation of the Hon’ble High Court Bench at
Aurangabad in the case of Divya Deepak Parkhe Vs. The State of
Maharashtra in Bail Application Nos. 914 of 2020 to 916 of 2020
as relied by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant which reads as
:6:
Order in BA no. 576/23
under :
9.

At the outset, it can be seen that the investigation is over
and charge sheets have been fled and therefore, there is
room to infer that the further physical custody of the
applicant is not required for the purpose of investigation.

10 As regards whether the ofence is made out or not, the
concerned Court would decide after the entire evidence is
led. Whether there was intention on the part of the
company which was run by the accused to cheat the
investors since beginning or not, would depend on the
evidence that would come. It would be premature to make
any kind of observations in that respect.

Likewise the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
10.

case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 runs as under :
“43. ……..The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us
that the applicants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer
than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in
the interest of justice that the accused should be in jail
for
an
indefinite period. No
against
the
appellants
is
doubt,
the
us
from
enlarging
alleged
a serious one in terms of alleged
huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by
deter
offence
the
itself,
appellants
should
on
not
bail when
there is no serious contention of the respondent that the
accused,
if
released
on
bail,
would
interfere
with
the
trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to
detain the
accused
in
custody,
that
too,
after
the
completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.”
(emphasis added)
:7:
11.

Order in BA no. 576/23
The ratio of aforesaid ruling can be applied to present case.
The applicant being shown resident of Mumbai, there may not be
likelihood of his absconding. It is not case of the Prosecution that
the applicant has criminal antecedents. In view of peculiar
circumstances, there appears no hurdle to release the applicant
on bail but by imposing stringent conditions so as to take care of
the apprehension in the mind of the Prosecution and intervenor.
Hence, the Point no.1 is answered in the affirmative.

12.

In view of reasoning and findings to Point No.1 as above,
the application being made out, it deserve to be allowed. As such
Point No.2 is answered as per following order :ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No. 576 of 2023 is hereby allowed.
2. The applicant Suhas Kisan More be released under Section 439 of
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on his executing PR bond
of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one or two sureties
bonds of like amount in C.R. No.148 of 2023 registered with
Nehru Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 3 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors
Act, 1999 on following conditions:i. The applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for a period of three
months.

ii. The applicant to make surety compliance before concerned
Court. The Registrar (S) to accept it at ATH.

iii. The applicant shall attend each and every date of the trial
without fail.

iv. The applicant shall undertake in writing not to tamper with
:8:
Order in BA no. 576/23
further investigation as well as evidence and shall not
pressurize the witnesses of Respondent.
v. The applicant shall undertake in writing not to travel abroad
without the permission of the concern Court.
vi. The applicant shall deposit his passport if any with the
Respondent / I.O. or if at all it is already seized by Respondent
/ I.O., then it be retained with Respondent.
vii.The applicant shall also provide proof of his residential
address along with the phone or cell numbers of his two close
relatives, with the Respondent/ I.O.
viii. The applicant shall not alienate any valuable movable and
immovable property standing in his name or in the name of
his blood relatives without prior permission of the concerned /
Ld. Trial Court.
ix. The breach of any one of the above conditions by the applicant
shall enable the Prosecution /Investigating Officer to apply for
the cancellation of his bail.
3. Accordingly, Respondent/I.O. to take the note of this order.
4. The present Bail Application No. 576 of 2023 stands disposed of
accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
Digitally signed
by SANJAY
BHALCHANDRA
JOSHI
Date:
2023.08.14
17:27:25 +0530
Date : 11.08.2023.

Directly Dictated on
Draft given on
Signed on
: 11.08.2023.
: 14.08.2023.
: 14.08.2023.

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

:9:
Order in BA no. 576/23
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
14.08.2023 at 5.18 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Mrs. G. P. Acharekar
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
11.08.2023
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
14.08.2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on
14.08.2023