Bombay High Court
Shekhar Ravansiddha Katgaonkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 December, 2020
Author: C.V. Bhadang
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
39 BAST 2656-20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 2656 OF 2020
Shekhar Revansiddha Katgaonkar .. Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
----
Mr. Manoj Mohite with Mr. Viresh Purwant, Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the State.
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 9TH DECEMBER, 2020
P.C.
1. The applicant (accused no. 1) alongwith others is facing
prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406 and
409 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4
of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial
Establishments) Act, 1999 ('MPID Act' for short) and Section 41, 42,
43 and 44 of The Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act,
2014.
2. The prosecution case as disclosed from the complaint lodged
by one Sachin Shinde is that the applicant alongwith the co-accused
had formed four financial institutions, under the name and style as
1)M/s Commercial 2) M/s Riddhi Siddhi 3)M/s Navratna and 4) M/
s Hari Om and had induced the complainant and other depositors
and make investments with the said firms, assuring a return at the
Nikita Gadgil 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2020 22:08:10 :::
39 BAST 2656-20
rate of 2% per month. It was represented that the applicant through
the aforesaid firms would be investing the amount in the market,
thereby generating substantial returns. The complainant had
deposited an amount of Rs. 46,45,000/- and had also persuaded his
relatives and friends to make investment in the aforesaid firms.
3. It is the material case that till December 2015 the investors
were paid returns as agreed and even more. However, subsequently
there were defaults in the matter of payment of interest. On inquiry,
it was found that the office of the firms was closed. Thereby the
complainant and other depositors realised that they have been
cheated and duped.
4. On the basis of said complaint the offence at CR No.
162/2016 came to be registered with Jodbhavi Peth Police Station,
Dist. Solapur and after investigation a chargesheet is filed, which is
registered as Special Case (MPID) No. 3/2016.
5. The learned Special Judge by an order dated 31 st January
2018 (below Exh.13) has refused to release the applicant on bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned APP.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
the allegations do not make out an offence of cheating in as much as
the allegations do not make out a case that the applicant was not
having intention to pay the returns since inception. It is submitted
that in fact even according to the complaint the returns were paid at
Nikita Gadgil 2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2020 22:08:10 :::
39 BAST 2656-20
the agreed rate and even more till December 2015. It is submitted
that this would show that there was no intention to cheat. The
learned counsel submitted that the investigation is complete and a
chargesheet is filed.
8. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the order dated
19th December 2016 passed by this Court in anticipatory bail
application no. 1636/2016 and the order dated 1 st December 2016
in criminal bail application no. 1910/2016 by which this court has
granted bail to Nagesh Katgaonkar (accused no.3) and Sukeshini
Katgaonkar (accused no.2), who is the wife of the applicant. It is
submitted that the applicant is entitled to parity.
9. It is submitted that the properties belonging to the applicant
and his wife and the brother-in-law have been attached by the
authorities, which are sufficient to realise the amount which is
involved and to secure the interest of the investors. It is submitted
that the applicant has no objection for the competent authority
auctioning the attached property for the realisation of the dues of
the investors and shall co-operate with the competent authority
under the MPID Act for auction/sale of the attached properties for
realisation of the said dues.
10. The learned APP in all fairness did not dispute that the
properties of the applicant and other co-accused have been attached.
It is further submitted that the applicant was principally involved in
inducing the investors for making investment assuring astronomical
returns in which subsequently there was default.
Nikita Gadgil 3 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2020 22:08:10 :::
39 BAST 2656-20
11. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and I have
gone through the order passed by this court granting bail to the co-
accused Nagesh Katgaonkar and Sukeshini Katgaonkar. In my
considered view, the applicant would be entitled to parity as the role
attributed to the applicant and the co-accused is similar, if not
identical. This Court while granting bail to Sukeshini Katgaonkar
has noted that the investigation is complete and chargesheet is filed
and that the returns as assured were paid and at times even more
than the assured interest was paid. This Court has further noted that
the properties standing in the name of the present applicant and co-
accused have been attached. This Court has also noted the statement
made across the bar that the value of the properties attached would
meet the required amount to reimburse the investors and that the
interest of the investors is secured. These circumstances would
clearly apply while considering the plea of the present applicant.
12. That apart, as noticed earlier, the learned counsel for the
applicant, on instructions, has made a specific statement that the
applicant has no objection to the attachment/auction/sale of the
attached properties and shall co-operate with the investigating
agency for realisation of the amount in order to secure the interest
of the investors/depositors.
13. Further, it can be seen that the principal offence under the
MPID Act invites maximum punishment of six years. Even the
offence under Section 406 invites a maximum punishment of 3
years. The applicant has surrendered before the investigating officer
on 2nd May 2016 and is thus in custody for more than four years and
seven months.
Nikita Gadgil 4 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2020 22:08:10 :::
39 BAST 2656-20
14. Considering the overall circumstances, I find that the
discretion can be exercised in favour of the applicant . Hence, the
following order:-
ORDER
1. Application is allowed.
2. The applicant be released on bail on executing a PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount.
3. The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Special Court without intimation/permission of the Special Court.
4. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence/witnesses.
5. The applicant shall cooperate with the competent authority under the MPID Act for auction/sale of the attached property and for the realisation of the amount of investors.
6. In the event of breach of any of the conditions, the bail is liable to be cancelled.
7. Bail bonds be furnished before the learned Special Judge.
C.V. BHADANG, J.
Nikita Gadgil 5 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2020 22:08:10 :::