The main legal point established is that the proper maintenance of ledger accounts and absence of evidence of inducement of investors can be considered in granting bail in financial fraud cases.

JUDGMENT

V. G. Bisht, J. - The present application has been moved by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.624 of 2019 registered with Police Station Shirur, for offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 465, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 3 and 4 of the The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act).

2 It is the case of prosecution that the informant and the applicant are acquainted with each other. The applicant is proprietor of Shri. Enterprises & Contractors and doing business of purchase and sale of spare parts / scrap materials with Banglore based company, namely, Wadia Tools and Kenametals India Ltd. The prosecution alleges that applicant posed that he is getting huge amount of funds and huge profit and required large capital and thus demanded money from the informant and induced him to deposit and invest amount from time to time. The informant and his brother-in-law invested Rs.42 lacs with interest at the rate of 10 to 15 % per annum. The prosecution further alleges that both of them demanded money back and the applicant was unable to pay due to financial crisis. Although the applicant issued two cheques to them, the same were dishonoured. During the course of investigation it revealed that the applicant had induced many other people and received amount totalling to Rs.10,29,85,200/-. The applicant had even made forged stamp of the company situated at Banglore and also prepared letter heads of Kenametals India Ltd. and it was shown to investors that he has to receive 53 crores from the said Company. Accordingly, First Information Report (FIR) came to be filed.

3 Mr.Rajiv Patil, learned senior counsel, invited my attention to the affidavit of the applicant filed on record for the limited purpose to submit ledger accounts of his business to clarify in which the amount was credited and debited from time to time. Then there are payment details at page 226 to 242. According to the learned senior counsel the applicant has no intention to cheat the investors and is duty bound to repay the invested amount. Investigation is completed. No criminal antecedents are forthcoming. In such circumstances, the applicant deserves to be released on bail, argued learned senior counsel.

4 Mr.Dedhia, learned APP, on the other hand opposed the submissions by contending that more than 10 crores amount of various investors have been misappropriated by the applicant. There being no merit in the application, the same is liable to be rejected.

5 Perused the investigation papers. It appears that during the course of hearing on 29th September 2021 when applicant sought time to file affidavit so as to explain the statement of accounts, this Court permitted him to file an affidavit and accordingly, an affidavit is filed on record which has already been referred to by the learned senior counsel during the course of submissions. Annexed along with the affidavit is ledger account which clearly shows the amounts debited and credited. Thus, the ledger accounts clearly go to show that whatever amount has been received and given by the applicant appears to be properly maintained. These ledger accounts have not been disputed, in any manner, by the prosecution.

6 It is also not specific case of the prosecution that the applicant had induced the investors. Investigation is completed. No criminal antecedents are forthcoming. In such circumstances and the fact that the trial may take a long time, the applicant deserves to be admitted on bail. Hence, I pass the following order :

ORDER

(i) Applicant Santosh Ganpat Mane shall be released on bail in Crime No.624 of 2019 registered with Police Station Shirur, on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with one or two sureties in like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station without prio