The court considered the applicant's potential gullibility, lack of direct involvement in fraudulent activities, and absence of criminal antecedents or flight risk as key factors in granting bail despite severe penal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. The applicant, who is in custody since 23-11-2020, is seeking bail in connection with Crime 251/2020, registered with Police Station Rana Pratap Nagar, Nagpur, for offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 and section 45(s) of Reserve Bank of India.

3. The crime is registered on the basis of report dated 13-11-2020, lodged by Mr. Ganesh Safale.

4. The gist of the prosecution case, as is discernible, from the Final Report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(“Code”) is that applicant Jivandas Dandhare, despite being aware that Metro Vision Buildcon The Real Trade (“Metro Vision”) is not authorized to accept deposits or investments, induced gullible investors to invest various amounts in the said company, the investors did not receive the interest and/or profit assured, much less the principal amount, and ultimately Metro Vision shut shop.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. A. K. Bhangde and the learned APP Mrs. K. R. Deshpande.

6. Mr. A. K. Bhangde would submit that even if the entire material in the chargesheet is taken at face value, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. This submission is premised on the applicant, being a victim, rather than a co-conspirator. Mr. A. K. Bhangde invites my attention to the uncontroverted material on record to emphasize that the applicant has himself invested as many as 27 lakhs, either in his name or Rs. 27 lakhs, either in his name or in the name of his wife. in the name of his wife.

7. Mrs. K. R. Deshpande, the learned APP is opposing the application vehemently. The learned APP has taken me through the entire material on record including the statements of the witnesses. The statements fall in two categories. The first set is the statements of the witnesses, who according to the prosecution, were induced by the applicant to invest in Metro Vision or its sister concerns and the second set is the statements of witnesses, who state in unison with the applicant, along with co-accused, participated in zoom meetings and webinars and painted a rosy picture of the investment plans offered by Metro Vision.

8. Perusal of the statements of the investors, who according to the prosecution, were induced to invest in Metro Vision reveals a significant common feature. Every witness states that when the applicant suggested or recommended the investment, the witness did not believe in the recommendation and the witness along with the applicant visited the office of Metro Vision to seek assurance of the credibility of the company.

9. It may not be appropriate to examine the material on record too minutely. However, the thinking process underlying the ultimate order will have to be disclosed. The prima facie impression which is gathered from the material on record is, that the applicant may have acted rashly or naively or may be even foolishly, in the sense that he himself invested a huge amount in Metro Vision, and that the applicant may not necessarily have recommended the investment plans of Metro Vision with a culpable intent.

10. I have not come across any material in the Final Report to suggest that the investors deposited any amount directly in the account of the applicant or that the relationship or nexus of the applicant with Metro Vision was something more than that of a investor and marketing agent. I have not come across any material in the Final Report, and indeed, it does not appear to be even the case of the prosecution, that the applicant is either a Director or otherwise a stakeholder in Metro Vision or that he played any role in conceptualizing the fraudulent schemes or formation of Metro Vision.

11. The learned APP Mrs. K. R. Deshpande, is relying on the order dated 30-6-2021 rendered by this Court (Coram : Shri Vinay Joshi, J.) rejecting the application under section