The court emphasized that bail should not be granted if there is prima facie evidence of the accused's involvement in serious offences and if there is a possibility of tampering with witnesses or fleeing from justice.

By this application, the applicant is seeking his release on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The allegations against this applicant and others against whom crime bearing No.156/2014 has been registered at Police Station Ambazari on the basis of complaint lodged by one Shri Vivek Ashok Pathak are that the applicant being the Director of Wasankar Wealth Management Private Limited (WWMPL for short) and also in charge of other companies of which he is either the director or proprietor, by making a false representation knowing it to be false, to the gullible investors made them invest their hard-earned money in the various investment schemes floated by his companies and did not return the money so invested in accordance with the promises given by him and thus committed offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and fraudulent defaults punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Investors' Deposits Act, 2002 (MPID Act for short). An offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. is also registered against the applicant and his associates as one of the allegations related to criminally intimidating the complainant and other investors.

3. The report was investigated into and it was found that prima facie this applicant and his associates were involved in commission of the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was filed, which was the first one in the series of additional charge-sheets filed subsequently. At that time, a few more offences were also added. Those offences were the ones punishable under or as per Section 409 of I.P.C., Section 45(1)(a), Section 45(s) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1949 and Section 24(1) and Section 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. It appears that initially offences were registered against three persons including the applicant and later on the list of accused persons swelled. The first charge-sheet was filed against three accused, which included the present applicant. Thereafter, two more supplementary charge-sheets were filed and thus so far, the charge-sheets have been filed against 11 accused persons. According to prosecution, there are in all 24 accused persons and the charge-sheet against some of the accused persons is yet to be filed, as the investigation is still going on.

4. I have heard Shri D.V. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri S.S. Doifode, learned A.P.P. for the State and Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel, who assisted the prosecution.

5. Shri D.V. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is one of the directors of the WWMPL and this company has been in the business of advising and counseling the investors so as to enable them to manage and operate their investment portfolios by opening Dmat Accounts for them and acting as a vital link between them and the main investment company viz. ISE Securities and Services Limited (ISE Limited for short), by being latter's sub-broker. He submits that WWMPL has never received any payments in its own name and whatever payments received were by way of cheques drawn in favour of ISE Limited and thus, there was no question of the applicant dishonestly inducing any investor or depositor to deposit moneys with WWMPL. He submits that WWMPL was also not involved in making any direct payments either to the depositors or the ISE Limited and what it received was only its brokerage.

6. The learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that Wasankar Investments is only a proprietary concern of which the applicant is a proprietor and if anything has been received by this concern, at the most the applicant could be held personally liable for that and not in the capacity as a director of WWMPL. He further submits that it is not the case of the complainant that after depositing or investing various amounts in the concern of the applicant, the com