Allowed

Prasad Deepak Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Jul 2024BA/1083/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought by a finance manager arrested for offences under the IPC and MPID Act in connection with his employer's deposit-collection scheme. The court noted the charge-sheet was filed, the applicant was jailed over a year, investor funds remained with the company, and main accused were absconding, and allowed bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000 with one solvent surety; conditions: monthly police attendance, no inducement/tampering, regular trial attendance.

Prasad Deepak Shinde vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

(8)-ba-1083-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1083 OF 2024

¶5

Prasad Deepak Shinde ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

Mr. Aniket Nikam with Sumit Patil, Shreya Anuwal and Dushyant Digambar i/by Mr. Amit Icham, for the applicant.

¶8

Mr. S.S. Chaudhari, APP, for the State.

¶9

Vijay Tikole, PI, EOW Pune City, Present.

¶10

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.

¶11

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA DEEPAK DEEPAK GAIKWAD GAIKWAD Date: 2024.07.31 10:42:28 +0530

¶12

DATE : 30TH JULY, 2024.

¶13

PC:

¶14

Heard.

¶15

By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.84 of 2023, registered with Bandgarden Police Station, Pune City for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, (for short, ‘MPID’).

¶16

The applicant was working as a finance manager in the

1 of 4

varsha

(8)-ba-1083-2023.doc

Ashtavinayak Investment Company and in a capacity as an employee. He used to follow the instructions of his employer. As per his nature of post and employment he used to explain the investment schemes to the investors and also advised them to invest the amount. It is submitted that the applicant himself invested huge amount i.e. more than Rs.90 lakh in the said company.

¶21

It is submitted that the applicant was arrested on 17.07.2023 and in between the charge-sheet has been filed after completion of the investigation. It is, therefore, submitted that further custody of the applicant is not necessary in the present matter.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned APP strongly opposed the application. It is submitted that the total amount involved is Rs.45 crore. He, therefore, submits that as the applicant is a person who is induced the investors, this Court may not grant bail to the applicant.

¶23

Having gone through the charge-sheet and the relevant evidence collected by the IO, during the investigation, it is evident that the applicant is 12^th pass and his designation in the company was finance manager. The nature of work of the applicant was to make calls to the investors and explain them various schemes of the company and advise them to invest the amount.

¶24

It appears that the applicant had also invested huge amount in the company.

2 of 4

varsha

(8)-ba-1083-2023.doc

During the investigation, the IO has seized two properties of the main accused and also seized bank accounts of the applicant and his wife. It is further evident from the charge-sheet that the main accused are absconding.

¶29

In the circumstances, it is evident that the applicant was an employee of the said company and amount deposited by the investors was with the company and not with the present applicant. Though the same amount was transferred in the accounts of the present applicant and his wife, appears to have re- transferred to the company.

¶30

In that view of the matter, considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail from last more than one year, I am of the opinion that further custody of the applicant is not necessary. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Criminal application is allowed;

¶33

ii) It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No.84 of 2023, registered with Bandgarden Police Station, Pune City for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial

3 of 4

varsha

(8)-ba-1083-2023.doc

Establishments) Act, on furnishing P.R.Bond of Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand with one solvent surety in the like amount;

¶38

iii) The applicant shall attend the Police Station on 1^st and 16^th day of every month between 10.00a.m to 11.00 a.m., till the filing of the charge-sheet or for six months from today, whichever is earlier.

¶39

iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also not tamper with the evidence;

¶40

v) Liberty is granted to the State for cancellation of bail in case of there is breach any condition or if the applicant commits any serious offence.

¶41

vi) The applicant shall attend the trial before the trial Court regularly on every date unless exemption is granted by the trial.

¶42

The Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly

¶43

(ANIL S. KILOR, J)

¶44

4 of 4

¶45

varsha

Prasad Deepak Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad Deepak Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jayshri Satish Bandgar vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Dattu Mande vs State of Maharashtra

Mohan Sadashiv Kadam @ Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Mandar Chandrahas Khadilkar vs State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Satyavan Landge vs State of Maharashtra

Balya @Tushar Ashok Mane vs State of Maharashtra