Bombay High Court Denies Bail in ₹214 Crore Investor Fraud Case, Cites Prima Facie 'Entrustment' and Diversion of Funds

Mumbai: In a significant ruling on economic offences, the Bombay High Court has denied bail to Jayant Sanjeeva Shetty, a director of Shree Ramanjaneya Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd., in connection with an alleged financial fraud amounting to ₹214 crore. Justice Amit Borkar held that allegations of collecting public deposits without a license and systematically diverting them to personal accounts go beyond a simple civil dispute and prima facie constitute criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court underscored that early, regular payouts to investors do not legitimize an inherently illegal deposit-taking scheme and can be viewed as a tactic to build confidence and lure more investors.

---

Background of the Case

The case originates from an FIR filed with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Mumbai, against Jayant Shetty and other directors of M/s. Shree Ramanjaneya Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. The prosecution alleges that from 2012 to 2020, the company illegally accepted deposits from thousands of investors through various schemes, including fixed deposits and "double-your-money" plans, promising high returns of 1-1.5% per month.

The company allegedly defaulted on repayments from 2017 onwards. Investigations revealed that the company was not authorized by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to accept public deposits. The fraud is currently estimated at ₹214 crore, involving statements from over 1,933 investors, with the figure expected to rise. Shetty, who had been absconding for over three years after his anticipatory bail applications were rejected in 2020, was arrested in January 2024.

---

Key Arguments

Applicant's Contentions (Led by Sr. Adv. Aabad Ponda): * The transactions were essentially loans or deposits, creating a debtor-creditor relationship, not an "entrustment" of property as required for criminal breach of trust (Sections 406/409 IPC). * The company had a long history of making timely repayments since 1994, negating any initial fraudulent intent. * The case should primarily be considered under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, which carries a maximum sentence of six years. Given that the applicant has already served over a year and a half, continued detention is unjust.

Prosecution and Interveners' Submissions: * The company was legally barred by the RBI Act and Companies Act from accepting public deposits, making the entire operation illegal from inception. * A provisional forensic audit revealed that approximately ₹2.68 crore was diverted directly into Shetty's personal bank accounts. Funds were also siphoned to allied entities. * The applicant's conduct, including absconding for over three years and allegedly threatening a witness from jail, demonstrates a high flight risk and potential for witness tampering. * The early payments were a classic "confidence-building" tactic to perpetuate the fraud.

---

Court's Analysis and Pivotal Findings

Justice Borkar, in a detailed order, differentiated the case from a mere failure to repay a loan, focusing on the alleged dishonest conduct and misuse of funds.

On 'Entrustment' vs. 'Loan': The court held that the diversion of funds to personal accounts for uses unrelated to the company's stated business of mortgage lending prima facie satisfied the ingredients of "entrustment."

"The material placed by the prosecution... claims that large amounts were collected from the public through different investment schemes which were not authorised under law... it was moved into the applicant’s personal bank accounts and HUF accounts under his control, and then sent to other related entities. These facts... clearly go beyond a normal lender–borrower relationship."

The court also noted that many fixed deposit receipts issued to investors were incomplete, lacking crucial details like interest rate and maturity value, which strengthened the prima facie view that there was a dishonest intention.

On the Applicability of the IPC: The court rejected the argument that the case should be confined to the MPID Act. It clarified that the MPID Act's focus on asset liquidation for repayment does not preclude prosecution under the IPC for offences involving criminal intent like cheating and breach of trust.

"It is well settled that if the same set of facts shows the ingredients of offences under both a special law and the IPC, the prosecution can go ahead under both, unless a specific legal bar says otherwise."

On the Applicant's Conduct: The applicant's prolonged abscondence after the rejection of two anticipatory bail applications weighed heavily against him. The court deemed it a strong indicator of his willingness to evade the legal process.

"Such prolonged absence... creates a strong prima facie impression that the applicant is capable of, and willing to, evade the legal process when it suits his convenience."

---

Final Decision and Implications

Citing the gravity of the offence, the large number of victims, the magnitude of the fraud, the prima facie evidence of fund diversion, and the applicant's past conduct, the High Court concluded that it was not a fit case for granting bail.

The court rejected the bail application, observing that releasing the applicant could hamper the ongoing investigation, including a crucial forensic audit, and pose a risk of witness intimidation and dissipation of remaining assets.

The court directed the investigating agency to complete the forensic audit expeditiously and instructed the Trial Court to consider proceeding with the trial against Shetty without being delayed by any stay orders concerning other co-accused.