Bombay High Court
Balwant Shankar Lohar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2021
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
19-BA-1742-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1742 OF 2020
Balwant Shankar Lohar .... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
______
Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar a/w Mr. Satish K. Ingale, for the
applicant.
Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the State/Respondent.
______
CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 3rd MARCH, 2021
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in
connection with C.R.No. 114 of 2019 registered at Mahad
City Police Station, District Raigad on 6/9/2019, under
sections 420,406,467,468,471,120-B of the Indian Penal
Code, under Section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (for short
'MPID Act') and under section 66(A) of the Information
Technology Act.
y.s.patil 1 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 20:39:09 :::
19-BA-1742-2020.odt
2. The prosecution story which is based on the
statement of the frst informant and other victims is as
follows:-
The accused No. 1 Shrinivasula Reddy and
accused No. 2 Shripad Rao, residents of Hyderabad had
formed a company known as 'Fair Pay Traders'. They had
created two websites in the name of their company. They
advertised their company and their schemes. Through
those advertisement they induced many investors to
invest in their various schemes. There are allegations
that the present applicant and accused No. 4 Amrutlal
Yadav were appointed as Commission agents and through
them also investors were induced to invest in those
schemes. Some victims were told that the applicant was
also one of the partners of the company. There are
allegations that the investors were told that the company
was dealing in the trade of gold, silver, crude oil, copper
etc. and therefore they could give returns at higher rate
of interest for the investment made with them. They had
started diferent schemes. Depending on the amount
y.s.patil 2 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 20:39:09 :::
19-BA-1742-2020.odt
invested and the period for which the amounts were
invested, certain returns were promised. They promised
to double their amount. There are allegations that in the
month of August 2018, there was a seminar where they
had explained the schemes. The seminar was held at P.G.
Regency, at Mahad. The accused No. 1 Reddy had made
inducement by telling the investors that if anything
happened to him, accused No. 2 Shripad Rao would take
all the responsibility and the investors would not put to
loss. For that purpose even reserved funds of the
company would be used. Based on this inducement,
many investors invested with this company and fnally
lost their money.
3. It is the prosecution case that the victims who
were almost 56 in number had invested Rs. 30,20,500/-.
There were paid returns of Rs. 14,71,848/- . Thus at least
Rs. 15 lakhs were misappropriated and if fgure of amount
which was promised to be returned was added to this
fgure, amount involved in the ofence was around
y.s.patil 3 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 20:39:09 :::
19-BA-1742-2020.odt
45,69,152/- . On this basis, after investigation, charge-
sheet was fled. There was also reference to a fgure of
more than 8 crores which was deposited in the company's
name held with Axis Bank. However, learned APP, on
instructions stated that the amount involved in this
ofence was restricted to the fgure of Rs. 45,69,152/- as
mentioned earlier.
4. Heard Mr. Anant Wadgaonkar, learned Counsel
for the applicant and Mr. S.H. Yadav, learned APP for the
State.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted
that the applicant is described as commission agent. He
has nothing to do with the Company. It was a
partnership frm. The applicant had no concern with the
frm. Like other victims, he had also invested in various
schemes. The allegations are that he gave lecture
explaining this scheme to the investors, at the most
shows that he believed the main accused and therefore
y.s.patil 4 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 20:39:09 :::
19-BA-1742-2020.odt
he was just telling other investors about his experience.
He submitted that the applicant has not played any role.
He is not a benefciary of the amount. Most of the
amounts were returned. Learned Counsel for the
applicant also relied on order passed by this Court in the
case of co accused Shrinivasula Kaveru Reddy who was
granted bail by this Court (Coram: S.K. Shinde J.) vide
order dated 4th January 2021 passed in Bail Application
Stamp No. 1611 of 2020. He submitted that said Reddy
was the main accused as can be seen from the
prosecution case and yet he is granted bail. He therefore,
submitted that there is no reason as to why the applicant
should be denied bail.
6. Learned APP opposed this application. He
vehemently submitted that there are 54 victims and they
have lost their money. There are clear allegations against
the present applicant. He had given lecture and induced
investors. The applicant cannot be escape his liability. He
submitted that co-accused Shrinivasulla Reddy was
y.s.patil 5 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 20:39:09 :::
19-BA-1742-2020.odt
granted bail because he had undertaken to deposit Rs. 5
lakhs with this Court. He submitted that therefore
principle of parity would not apply in favour of the
applicant.
7. I have considered these submissions. With the
assistance of both learned Counsel I have perused the
charge-sheet. It is not the prosecution case that the
applicant in any manner has received any money for
himself. Shri Yadav, learned APP could not point out any
recovery of amount efected at the instance of the
present applicant. Similarly none of his properties was
seized under the provisions of MPID Act. Thus it can be
seen that, after exhaustive investigation there was
nothing to show that the applicant had received any
money or that he was a benefciary. Therefore, there is
force in the submissions of learned Counsel for the
applicant that the main accused were Reddy and others.
Reddy is granted bail as mentioned earlier. The applicant
is in custody since 12/2/2020. The investigation is over.
y.s.patil 6 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 20:39:09 :::
19-BA-1742-2020.odt
Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the present
applicant.
8. Hence the following order.
ORDER
(i) In connection with C.R. No 114 of 2019 registered with Mahad City Police Station, Raigad, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
y.s.patil 7 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 20:39:09 :::