Interim Order 1

Order Details: Bail Order
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 2865 PW 2024 State Vs Jignesh
CNR-MHMM18-012263-2024
ORDER BELOW BAIL APPLICATION, EXH.6
1. Perused record. Heard both the sides.
2. The accused/applicant filed present application under Section 480
of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), for bail, contending that
he is innocent and has not committed any offence. The informant and
witnesses invested money through him despite being aware of the risk
involved in share market. Her family members are unaware of it.
However, as those investments not earned profit, therefore, informant
suffered losses and requested accused to prepare dummy investment sheet
to cover up losses. The accused not agreed to it despite that a fake
evidence in the form of email has been created. The investments made
were old and informant never sought any refund. With view to harass the
applicant/accused and with ulterior intention to pressurize him she has
filed false report. All the investments were made at the instance of
informant. The accused is not responsible for the losses. The another
witness Mr. Deshpande, is close aide of accused and he invested the
amounts and also suffered losses. But he has not blamed accused. Despite
that with intention to frame the accused he has shown as witness and
accused is falsely dragged in that connection. Now investigation is over
and there is no point to keep the accused in further detention. Accused is
ready to remain abide by the conditions, etc.
3. The Ld. A.P.P. objected to bail application stating that allegations
are serious. Huge amount involved in the matter. The investigation
though completed, there is possibility of tampering. Accused found
involved in several other crimes of the same nature registered with other
police stations, etc. Therefore, application shall be rejected.
4. The submissions of both the parties are in tune with their respective
contentions. Accused also relied on certain citations, mainly Krishna
Damani Vs State of West Bengal, (Cri. Appeal No.2743 of 2024, arising out of
Page - 1/4
-- 1 of 4 --
C. C. No. 2865 PW 2024 State Vs Jignesh
CNR-MHMM18-012263-2024
S.L.P. (Criminal) No.6954 of 2024), Prabhakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and anr.,
(2024 DGLS (SC) 79), and Sachin Vs State of Maharashtra (2019 SCC Online Bom
1080),
5. The summary of the allegations is that the informant and accused
were known to each other through Mr. Ajay Deshpande. Accused is a
share broker. On advice of Mr. Ajay Deshpande, in the year 2013 and
2014, informant invested total amount of Rs.29,31,000/- through accused
who assured of her high returns. However, on an inquiry she came to
know that the amount handed over by her has not been invested and as
such she has been defrauded by the accused. Further, during investigation
it is transpired that in the same way witness Mr. Ajay Deshpande, has
also been defrauded by the accused and huge amount i.e. an amount of
Rs.2,78,69,423/- has been fraudulently obtained by accused from said
witness.
6. Now the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. After
going through the charge sheet certain important facts were noticed, first,
that the disputed amount was handed over to accused in a period running
between the year 2013 to 2017. The First Information Report is however
registered in the year 2024. It is not explained why this long delay
occurred in registration of the crime. Second, the amounts were invested
by the informant but the informant suffered losses and the evidence about
the showing false profits is somewhat deficient. Third, the First
Information Report is mainly in respect of alleged fraud and cheating
committed to the informant. However, the additional facts pertaining to
cheating and fraud on one of the witness Mr. Ajay Vyankatesh
Deshpande, was also added. The said witness is himself Chartered
Accountant and invested the amounts allegedly through accused. Being
expert of financial intricacies of investments, there is doubt whether
accused can be said to be defrauded him or not?
Page - 2/4
-- 2 of 4 --
C. C. No. 2865 PW 2024 State Vs Jignesh
CNR-MHMM18-012263-2024
7. If we go through the contents of First Information Report and the
statement of witness Mr. Ajay Deshpande, it shows that First Information
Report is only in respect of only an amount of Rs.29,31,000/-, which can
not be said to be high amount. However, the said witness made
investments of about Rs.3 crores. It is also clear from the record that
those transactions can not be interconnected. Despite that charge sheet
filed in respect of both the transactions by adding the said witness Mr.
Ajay Deshpande. Further, the statement of Mr. Ajay Deshpande, show
that he invested in arbitrage funds, which is a sort of gamble and a risky
affair. The said witness himself is Chartered Accountant and can be said
to be aware of this fact and it can be presumed that he has taken risk and
invested the huge amount. It can not be said that accused had mislead him
and fraudulently obtained amount under the pretext of investment. These
aspects supports the ground pleaded by accused that he has been dragged
by informant falsely.
8. Further, if we collectively considered this aspect and the facts
noticed from the charge sheet as discussed in preceding Paragraph No.6,
there accrues doubt about the very nature of allegations. Even if it is
presumed that there are transactions took place between accused and
informant and witness Mr. Ajay Deshpande, it can not be said that there is
any offence made out, those transactions seems to be of civil nature, a
case of failure of promises not amounting to offence of cheating, at least
for the limited purpose of considering this application for bail.
9. Now the investigation is over. The evidence mainly in the form of
documents is already collected. The witnesses are interested persons.
Accused is having permanent residence and ready to remain abide by the
conditions. As such the possibility of tampering is almost nil. The
possibility of commencement of trial and it’s conclusion in near future
appears difficult. In such a situation pre-trial detention is not justified.Page - 3/4
-- 3 of 4 --
C. C. No. 2865 PW 2024 State Vs Jignesh
CNR-MHMM18-012263-2024
10. Considering all these aspects and facts and circumstances and
reasons assigned in the bail application the bail needs to be granted by
allowing the present application. Accordingly, following order -
ORDER
a. Application is allowed.
b. Accused is released on bail on his furnishing P.B. and S.B. of
Rs.30,000/-. One or two sureties for the said amount or cash security in
substitution of surety bond for the like amount is allowed.
c. Accused shall furnish his detail address and proof thereof.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 11.11.2024 J.M.F.C., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
Page - 4/4
-- 4 of 4 --