The Designated Court under the MPID Act retains full jurisdiction to try connected IPC offences, and bail was denied due to the gravity of economic fraud allegations.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 4, 2025 JUDGMENT:

1. By the present bail application filed under Section 4 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as " Cr.P.C ."), the applicant is seeking the relief of regular bail in connection with Crime Register No. 52 of 2022, registered at Bhandup Police Station. The said crime has been registered for offences punishable under Section s 406 , 409, 420 read with Section s 3 4 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), as well as under Section s 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short “MPID Act”).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the original complainant, a resident of Badlapur and working with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, was introduced by his friend, one Balu Tarse, to an investment scheme of an establishment named Mars Finance, which was stated to be operating from B-204, Eastern Business District, Neptune Magnet Mall, LBS Road, Ganeshnagar, Bhandup (West), Mumbai. The said friend informed the complainant that he himself had invested money in Mars Finance and was receiving regular returns therefrom. Encouraged by this, the complainant was persuaded to consider investing in the scheme of Mars Finance.

3. Acting on such persuasion, the complainant visited the office of Mars Finmart on 10th November 2020. At the said office, he was initially attended by one Ms. Anjali, who introduced him to the accused persons, namely, Mr. Milind Sawant and Mr. Rupesh Shah. The accused persons explained to the complainant various investment schemes and the manner in which returns would be generated. They further represented that they were engaged in stock and mutual fund trading business and assured the complainant of a monthly return of 5% on the amount invested.

They also informed him that if he did not have sufficient funds for investment, they could arrange for a bank loan in his name, for which he was only required to submit his documents. The accused assured the complainant that on such a loan, they would provide him monthly profit of 5% of the loan amount, from which the loan installment would be deducted and the balance paid to him. For instance, if a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- was obtained, the complainant would receive Rs.1,00,000/- per month, out of which Rs.50,000/- would be adjusted towards the loan installment and the remaining Rs.50,000/- would be paid to him. Being impressed with such representation and assurances, the complainant agreed to participate in the scheme and made further enquiries regarding repayment mechanism of the loan.

4. The accused persons informed him that the installment amount would be deducted from the salary account maintained by them and thereafter collected necessary documents from the complainant. However, they did not disclose to him the exact bank or lending institutions from which the loan would be procured. Thereafter, in due course, a sum of Rs.38,19,927/- came to be credited into the Bank of Maharashtra account of the complainant. The said amount was disbursed by five different banks as loans, the details of which are as under:

(a) HDFC Bank, Kanjurmarg Branch – Rs.8,93,884/-;

(b) IDFC Bank, Wagle Estate, Thane Branch – Rs.8,83,448/-;

(c) IndusInd Bank, Andheri Branch – Rs.7,79,012/-; (d) ICICI Bank, Andheri Branch – Rs.4,93,038/-; and (e) HDB Bank, Andheri Branch – Rs.7,70,545/-.

5. It is alleged that the signatures of the complainant were obtained by accused Rupesh Shah in his office. Out of the total loan proceeds of Rs.38,19,927/-, an amount of Rs.34,30,000/- was transferred to