:1:
Order in BA no. 550/23
MHCC020096602023
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2023
IN
C. R. NO. 124 OF 2023
Vishant Vishwas Bhoir
Aged : 35 years, Occ : Business
Residing at Room No.02,
Bldg. No.A/1, Shri Ganesh Madhav
Sansar Khadak Pada, Kalyan (West),
Thane – 421301.

]
]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Cuff Parade Police Station)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Tanaya Goswami for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Malankar for the State/ Respondent.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI S. B. JOSHI
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 2nd August, 2023.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the applicant Vishant
Vishwas Bhoir resident of Kalyan(W), Thane under Section 439 of
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in
connection with C.R. No.124 of 2023 registered with Cuff Parade
:2:
Order in BA no. 550/23
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
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 against applicant is that he and
his wife Smt. Pooja Bhoir had assured the informant for
handsome profit on making investment with their business
named and styled as “Algo Options Strategy Module”. Accordingly
the informant and his wife both have made investment of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and Rs.6,00,000/(Rupees Six Lakhs only) during November 2022 to March 2023.
But the applicant only managed to return her only two weekly
profit. Thereafter, he has not responded to their request to repay
them sum assured, even after issuing legal notice dated
15.03.2023 which remained without reply. Thus, the informant
lodged the report on 12.05.2023 with Cuff Parade Police Station,
Mumbai against the applicant and his wife.

3.

Upon receiving the information in writing the concern Police
Station registered the crime bearing No.124 of 2023 registered
with Cuff Parade Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Section 3 of MPID Act against the
applicant and his wife.

4.

The applicant denied this prosecution story by contending
that his name is not appearing in F.I.R. but he has been added as
accused after 40 days of lodging F.I.R. He has no concerned with
the crime and transaction in question. The alleged investment
:3:
Order in BA no. 550/23
made by the complainant was with his wife Pooja and not with
him.

The
allegations
do
not
attract
both
the
Sections
simultaneously under IPC and under MPID Act as leveled. The
offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC can not go together.
The dispute pertains to civil transaction. All the documents
pertaining to transactions are with the Investigating Authority.
Nothing is remained to be recovered now. However, flat no.303
and 304 in Richa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. at Kalyan
have been seized by the Investigating Agency. He has no criminal
antecedents. The investigation is completed and the charge-sheet
is also filed. No purpose would be solved by keeping the applicant
behind bar. No possibility of his fleeing away. He is ready to abide
with the conditions if imposed. Thus, he prayed for his release.
The Respondent/Ld. SPP opposed this application by filing
5.

say at Exhibit No.2, on grounds that the applicant has played vital
role
in
committing
the
alleged
fraud
to
the
tune
of
Rs.3,15,60,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Fifteen Lakhs Sixty
Thousand only). Still the properties obtained by cheating are yet
to be recovered. If the applicant released on bail then there is
possibility of tampering with the witnesses and he will flee away.
However, a sum of Rs.81,958.32 (Rupees Eighty One Thousand
Nine Hundred Fifty Eight and Paise Thirty Two only) from the
bank and demat account of the applicant’s wife has been freezed.
The applicant is habitual offender facing crime at Nashik, Latur,
Thane. He has joined with his wife who is also one of the accused
in the present crime. The two flats belonging to him and his wife
at Kalyan have been seized and sealed. The two vehicles Motor
Cars valued for Rs.27,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Fifty
:4:
Order in BA no. 550/23
Thousand only) have been seized from the applicant. Still detail
investigation is outstanding. Hence, the Respondent / Ld. SPP
prayed for rejection of the application.
Heard both sides. In the light of the facts on record and
6.

submissions by the parties 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 Vishant Vishwas In the affirmative.
Bhoir 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 :
7.

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that now
charge-sheet is filed. Investigation is over. Nothing is remained to
be recovered from the applicant. The say of Respondent itself
shows that the properties (movable), two vehicles and cash as
well as demat account of the applicant’s wife have been seized to
the tune of Rs.81,958.32 (Rupees Eighty One Thousand Nine
Hundred Fifty Eight and Paise Thirty Two only). Also tow flats at
Kalyan have been sealed. He is in jail since 23.06.2023, so no
purpose would be served by keeping him in jail. Thus, Ld.
Counsel for the applicant prayed for release of the applicant.

8.

The Ld. Prosecutor submitted that even though charge-sheet
:5:
Order in BA no. 550/23
is filed against the applicant considering his role attributed
alleged cheating and he being facing another crime, the
Respondent has strong objection to this application more
particularly for the grounds stated in their say.
9.

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant relied on the decision in
the case of Suresh G. Motwani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported
in 2004(SUPP)BOM.C.R.521, wherein it has observed that
criminal prosecution is not a proceeding for the recovery of dues
of the investors but is meant to punish the guilty. There is no
dispute as to the legal notice discussed as above.

10.

In this backdrop, it is to point out that as stated in the reply
of Respondent, the movable properties including two four
wheelers belonging to applicant as well as applicant’s wife bank
account total amounting to Rs.81,958.32 (Rupees Eighty One
Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Eight and Paise Thirty Two only)
have been recovered and seized and also seized tow flats at
Kalyan standing in the name of the applicant and his wife have
been sealed and the charge-sheet is also filed. The applicant is in
jail since 23.06.2023. In this situation the trial will take long time
in completion. Filing of the charge-sheet is itself a substantial
change in circumstance. So it is necessary to consider this
application in view of filing of charge-sheet. No purpose would be
served by keeping the applicant behind bar for indefinite period.
So it will be useful to quote the observation of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI reported in AIR 2012
SC 830 by Hon’ble Apex Court which reads as under,
:6:
11.

Order in BA no. 550/23
“(i)
Ordinarily, persons accused of any offence at the stage of
trial should be released on bail,
(ii)
Grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
Presumption of innocence is sacrosanct and therefore, bail
at the stage of trial is imperative to enable accused to look
after his own case and establish his innocence.”
28.

“WE are of conscious of the fact that the accused is
charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We
are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if
proved, may jeoparadise the economy of the country. At
the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the
investigating agency has already completed investigation
and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special
Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the
custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We
are of the view that the applicants are entitled to the grant
of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to
ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.”
The ratio laid down in above decision can be applied to the
present case. There is no likelihood of the applicant absconding
being inhabitant of Kalyan (W), Thane. Hence, the Court is
inclined to grant the bail to the applicant. However, to take care
of alleged apprehension of the Investigating Agency, it would be
justifiable one to impose stringent conditions on the applicant
while getting released his on bail. As such 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. 550 of 2023 is hereby allowed.

:7:
Order in BA no. 550/23
2. The applicant Vishant Vishwas Bhoir be released under Section
439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on his executing PR
bond of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with one or two
sureties bonds of like amount in C.R. No.124 of 2023 registered
with Cuff Parade Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 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.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs 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
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 her 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.

:8:
Order in BA no. 550/23
3. Accordingly, Respondent/I.O. to take the note of this order.
4. The present Bail Application No. 550 of 2023 stands disposed of
accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
Digitally signed by
SANJAY
BHALCHANDRARAO
JOSHI
Date: 2024.07.15
11:31:17 +0530
Date : 02.08.2023.

Directly Dictated on
Draft given on
Signed on
: 02.08.2023.
: 02.08.2023.
: 02.08.2023.

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

:9:
Order in BA no. 550/23
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
15.07.2023 at 11.28 a.m.
RE-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
02.08.2023
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
02.08.2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on
04.08.2023
Corrections made as per order in MA No.1628 15.07.2024
of 2023 dated 06.07.2024 and order reuploaded on