Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5986
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
N.J.JAMADAR, J
Dilip Kundandas Dulani – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No.2140 of 2023 | Anticipatory Bail Application No.2135 of 2023
For the Applicants: Mr. Ashutosh Gole with Mr. Girish Paryani
For the Respondents: Mr. A.A.Naik, APP
For the Interveners: Mr. Karansingh Rajput i/by Mr. Nilesh Kumbhar
The court established that the intent to defraud must be assessed at trial based on the circumstances, while recognizing the applicants' mitigating actions in bail consideration.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, Sections 120-B, 420, 406, 506 and Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, Section 3 - Anticipatory bail - Applicants, accused of deceiving investors under false representations, sought anticipatory bail - Allegations included defaults in payment and threats made to investors post-investment - Court noted evidence indicating prima facie material against applicants, including substantial amounts raised and alleged misappropriation - However, stressed the absence of intent to defraud at the outset and highlighted deposit made by applicants as mitigating - Custodial interrogation deemed unnecessary given advanced stage of investigation - Bail granted. (Paras 10, 14, 16, 17)
(B) Investigation and Bail - Considerations - Extent of participation in crime and potential for danger to public or witnesses are key factors in deciding on bail - Length of time since the alleged crime and status of investigation play a critical role. (Paras 15, 16)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. intent to defraud requires thorough examination. (Para 1 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. investors were misled with promises of returns. (Para 2 , 8) |
| 3. bail considerations include ongoing cooperation and financial circumstances. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. custodial interrogation deemed unnecessary. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 5. order allows anticipatory bail with conditions. (Para 18) |
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 11 SEPTEMBER 2024 P.C.
1. The applicants, father and son duo, have preferred these applications for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.232 of 2023 registered with Ulhasnagar Police Station, Dist. Thane, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B , 420, 406, 506 read with Section 3 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (the MPID Act, 1999).
2. Mr. Parmanand Hinduja, the first informant and the Applicant in the Intervention Applications, became acquainted with the applicants through a common friend Mr. P.M.Hasani. The applicants made a representation to the first informant that they were engaged in the business of manufacturing of pressure cookers. The applicants were intending to expand the business, and for that purpose, they were in the process of acquiring land. The first informant alleged, the applicants induced him to invest the amount in the said business with a promise of lucrative returns. The first informant, thus, invested an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs through banking channel. Initially, as promised, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid to the first informant in two installments towards the return of investment. Thereafter, the applicants committed defaults in payment of the interest, as promised. In the month of December 2022, when the first informant approached the Applicants, the latter flatly declined to refund the amount and, instead, threatened the first informant with dire consequences. Upon inquiry, it transpired that the applicants had deceived other investors in a similar fashion. Thus, the first informant lodged the report.
3. Apprehending arrest, the applicants approached the Court of Session. As the Court of Session declined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants, they have preferred these applications.
4. On 29 August 2023, this Court was persuaded to protect the liberty of the applicants as a statement was made that on account of the loss in the business, the applicants could not refund the amount and there was no intention to deceive the investors, and to show their bonafide, the applicants were willing to deposit a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs. The applicants have deposited the said amount of Rs.25 Lakhs.
5. Mr. Gole, learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that, pursuant to the aforesaid order of interim bail, the applicants have appeared before the Investigating Officer and rendered necessary co- operation in the investigation. The applicants have disclosed the state of their business affairs before the investigating agency earnestly. Though the applicants had shown willingness to deposit further amount of Rs.15 Lakhs, yet on account of the pressing situation which warranted the applicants to deposit the amount to obviate an action by the bank to take possession of the house premises of the applicants, they could not honour the said commitment.
6. Mr. Gole further submitted that even if the prosecution case is taken at par, the intent to defraud cannot be discerned. The first informant and other investors had invested the amounts as the business was then flourishing. On account of the slow down of the business, post Covid-19 Pandemic, the applicants could not refund the amounts and, eventually, the properties of the firms of the applicants were required to be liquidated to repay the debt raised from the banks.
7. In any event, having regard to the nature of the accusation, at this length of time, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not at all warranted. Therefore, the order of interim bail be made absolut
