The court affirmed that evidence supports charges under Section 409 IPC for fraudulent misappropriation while emphasizing the need for continued detention due to witness tampering risks.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 13, 2025 P.C.:

1. By this application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short), the applicant seeks his release on regular bail in connection with Special Case No. 928 of 2022 arising from Crime Register No. I-274 of 2021 registered with Kasarvadavali Police Station. The case is for offences punishable under Sections 420 , 406, 409 read with Section 3 4 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (“IPC” for short) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (“MPID Act”).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused No. 2, Shrikant Palande, visited the informant’s house and introduced himself as the proprietor of a company named Anuja Consultancy, engaged in forex trading. He assured the informant that an investment of ₹1 lakh would yield a return of ₹5,000 per month. He also promised security for the investment by issuing post-dated cheques and executing a promissory note. Believing his words, the informant invested in phases an amount of ₹47 lakhs. Against this, Shrikant issued post-dated cheques and a promissory note. An amount of ₹12,45,000/- was repaid to the informant.

3. Thereafter, in October 2019, the accused stopped making further payments. On inquiry, both accused – Shrikant and his wife Shraddha (accused No. 1), expressed inability to pay but persuaded the informant to invest another ₹30 lakhs, assuring repayment. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 28 July 2020 was executed between the informant and the accused. Acting on this, the informant invested ₹15 lakhs more. Subsequently, the informant discovered that both accused had vacated their residence. Consequently, the FIR came to be lodged.

The applicant was arrested on 6 June 2022.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been in custody since 6 June 2022 and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, given the number of witnesses and the nature of the case. It is contended that the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 409 IPC. Further, for the offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 3 of the MPID Act, the maximum sentence prescribed is seven years. The applicant has already undergone incarceration of over three years, and therefore deserves to be enlarged on bail, more so when continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment.

5. Per contra, the learned APP has opposed the application. It is submitted that the applicant, along with the co-accused, was running Anuja Consultancy without registration or permission from the Reserve Bank of India to accept deposits. They lured investors with an unrealistic promise of 5% monthly returns. In total, the accused collected about ₹2,83,76,000/- from more than 48 investors, and cheques for returns were signed by the applicant himself. The money was received through bank transfers, cheques, and cash. The modus operandi included executing MoUs with investors to gain their trust.

6. The investigation reveals that ₹24,22,987/- was transferred to the applicant’s personal account, and the preliminary forensic audit indicates cash withdrawals of ₹1,20,74,845/-. According to the prosecution, this is a case of systematic siphoning of hard- earned money of innocent investors. Given the scale of the fraud and its impact on multiple victims, the learned APP urges that the bail be rejected.

7. I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP. I have perused the FIR, the charge-sheet papers, bank statements, the preliminary forensic audit note, the Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), and the documents show