Bombay High Court
Saranya Manikandan And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2021
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
1 of 7 ABA.23.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.23 OF 2021
1. Saranya Manikandan, age 26 years,
2. Balakrishnan Manikandan, age 48 years,
both r/o.28, North End Road, Krishnasamy
Nagar, Ramanathpuram, Coimbatore-641045.
Presently lodged at Coimbatore Central Prison Applicants
versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
Mr.Tanveer Nizam, Ms.Surbhi Soni and Ms.Rohini Menon i/by
Mr.Manish Varma, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP, for Respondent-State.
API Sohan Kadam, Versova Police Station, Mumbai, present.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 22nd March 2021
PC :
1. The applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with CR
No.376 of 2019 registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai for
offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The
FIR was registered on 18th November 2019.
2. The complainant has alleged that in 2015 he was introduced
to applicant no.2. The complainant was informed that applicant no.2
is conducting business in the name of Shree Sasta Online Trading
having its office at 201, Times Square Regus Office Centre, B-Wing,
2nd Floor, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. If
complainant invest amount he would be benefited. The applicant
::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 00:40:41 :::
2 of 7 ABA.23.2021.doc
no.2 had visited the house of complainant. He represented that in
the event of investigation of amount, he would get good returns
within stipulated period. Thereafter applicant no.2 had conversation
with the complainant through phone and whats app. Applicant no.2
had informed the complainant that several other persons have
invested amount in his company and they have received good
returns. Applicant no.2 had given advertisement in Times of India
on 9th May 2015. Applicant no.1 is daughter of applicant no.2 and
both were conducting investment business. After the retirement of
complainant, he was pursued by applicant no.2 to invest amount
with his company. He was assured that guaranteed returns would be
given to him in the event of investment in different schemes. The
complainant was also assured that in the event of any delay or loss,
the said amount would be compensated to him. An agreement was
executed on 29th May 2015. On 27th May 2015 the complainant had
invested amount of Rs.5 lakh. The complainant became member of
Shree Sasta Online Trading. Thereafter on 28th May 2015 the
complainant forwarded Rs.3 lakh by cheque to the account of
applicant no.2 and Rs.4 lakh on 29 th May 2015. Applicant no.1 then
induced the complainant to invest amount in golden investment
scheme with assurance that returns would be received within one
year. On 22nd June 2015 the complainant invested Rs.2 lakh and on
26th June 2015 he invested Rs.2.90 lakh. Similarly on 29 th June
2015, 3rd July 2015 and 11th July 2015 the complainant invested
amount of Rs.2,58 lakh, Rs.8.40 lakh and Rs.5 lakh respectively.
Thus, total amount of Rs.15 lakh was invested by the complainant.
He was assured of the bonus by the accused. He was supposed to
receive Rs.1.20 crore as profits. Applicant no.2 had assured the
complainant that he would be entitled to the benefits in the end of
::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 00:40:41 :::
3 of 7 ABA.23.2021.doc
the year 2016. He would be receiving about Rs.7,24,80,000/- by
way of returns. Thereafter both the applicants took the complainant
in confidence and induced him to invest amounts on 13 th July 2015,
16th July 2015, 21st July 2015 and 30th July 2015 and the
complainant transferred the amount towards schemes introduced by
the accused. The amount was transferred by way of cheques. The
complainant had invested amount to the tune of Rs.77.70 lakh and
Rs.7.02 lakh. From 2015 to 2016 the complainant was taken into
confidence by the applicants with an assurance of rich dividends and
profits and he was induced to invest Rs.86,28,495/-. Similarly the
friend of the complainant was also induced to invest Rs.4,75,000/-.
Thus, they were cheated for Rs.91,03,495/-.
3. The applicants preferred application for bail before the
Sessions Court. The said application was rejected by order dated 5 th
December 2020.
4. Learned advocate for applicant submitted that applicant no.1
is educated lady. Applicant no.2 is also well educated. It is
submitted that transactions were completed in April-2016. The FIR
was lodged on 18th November 2019. There is no reason for delay in
lodging the FIR. The complainant had invested from May-2015 till
April-2016. It is difficult to believe that if the complainant do not
receive any benefits for such a long period, he would convince other
family members to invest the amount in the schemes of the
applicants. The complainant had enjoyed the benefits of his
investment for a continued period but did not disclose this fact to
Police and suppressed the vital facts. Clause-4 of the Memorandum
Of Understanding executed between the complainant and applicant
::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 00:40:41 :::
4 of 7 ABA.23.2021.doc
no.2 makes it clear that applicant no.2 had promises returns @ 8%
p.a and not 30% as alleged by the complainant. There was no
dishonest intention to attract Section 420 of IPC. In the FIR it is
stated that applicant no.2 was invited by the complainant at his
residence at the instance of his friend Captain Shrikant Gondhne and
was not approached by the applicants. Advertisement was released
by applicant no.2 in the Times of India newspaper dated 9 th May
2019. Thus, the applicants did not induce the complainant to invest
amount. The firm of applicant no.2 viz Shree Sasta Online Trading is
a proprietary firm and not a partnership firm. Applicant no.2 has no
role in the said firm. The complainant has stated in the complaint
that he had deposited money in the firm and applicant no.2 which is
a sole proprietary concern and not partnership firm. No specific
overt act has been assigned to the applicant no.1. She has been
falsely implicated in this case. She is the daughter of applicant no.2.
The complainant has admitted that applicant no.2 was invited
through Captain Shrikant Gondhne who has also allegedly suffered
loss. There is no element of criminal breach of trust or cheating.
The dispute relates to commercial transaction and is of civil nature.
The FIR has been registered for pressurizing the applicants to submit
to the demands of complainant. There is distinction between mere
breach of contract and offence of cheating. The civil remedy could
have been at the most resorted to by the complainant. The demand
notice was issued through Advocate by the complainant dated 15 th
July 2019 and Rs.8,39,15,000/- was claimed by the complainant.
The alleged investment is of Rs.86,28,495/-. It is obvious that
complainant had received huge amount from applicant no.2 towards
his investment. Custodial interrogation of the applicants is not
necessary. The applicants are willing to co-operate with the
::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 00:40:41 :::
5 of 7 ABA.23.2021.doc
investigation. The applicants would produce the requisite documents
before Investigating Officer in support of their defense. Learned
Sessions Judge has committed error in rejecting the application for
anticipatory bail.
5. Learned APP submitted that huge loss is caused to the
complainant by accused. False promises were made about good
returns on investment of amount by the complainant in the schemes
of accused. Both the applicants have played role in making false
representations to the complainant and inducing him to invest huge
amount with promises of benefits of good returns. The complainant
is a senior citizen aged about 71 years. On his retirement he had
invested the amount saved by him in the schemes of applicants
expecting good returns. The total investment of the complainant and
his friend is to the tune of Rs.91,03,495/-. The memorandum of
understanding executed by applicant no.2 indicating that loss, if any,
caused to the investor, would be compensated to gain confidence of
complainant. It is further submitted that applicants are habitual
offenders. The offences are registered against them with other police
stations for cheating and criminal breach of trust. Two cases are
registered against applicant no.1 and four cases are registered
against applicant no.2 in the past. Applicant no.1 is involved in CR
No.12 of 2020 registered with CCS Police Station, Hyderabad for
offence u/s.420 IPC; CR No.948 of 2020 is registered for offences
u/s.406, 420 r/w 34 IPC against applicant no.2 at Palaghat Police
Station, Kerala; CR No.79 of 2017 is registered against accused no.2
with Bengalore Electronic City Police Station for offences u/s.193,
195, 420, 120B of IPC. CR No.3 of 2020 is registered against
applicant no.2 with EOW, Coimbatore for offences u/s.406, 420,
::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 00:40:41 :::
6 of 7 ABA.23.2021.doc
120B of IPC. CR No.146 of 2016 is registered with Khar Police
Station, Mumbai for offences u/s.406, 420 IPC against applicant
no.2.
6. Learned counsel for applicants in rejoinder submitted that
applicant no.2 was arrested and granted bail by Madras High Court
in CR No.3 of 2020 investigated by EOW, Coimbatore vide order
dated 31st January 2021. Applicant no.2 has been granted bail in
connection with Crime No.12 of 2020 registered with Central Crime
Station, Hyderabad by High Court for State of Telangana, at
Hyderbaad vide order dated 14th December 2020.
7. On perusal of FIR and the other documents it can be seen that
the complainant and his friend Captain Shrikant Gondhne had
invested amount with applicants. Specific overt act has been
attributed to both the applicants. The complainant is a senior
citizen. His life savings were invested on the promises made by the
applicants. Huge amount was invested with the concerns of the
applicants. The amount is huge. The grievance of the complainant is
that false promise was made inducing him to invest amount. The
returns as promises were not paid to the complainant. The
applicants have not established that returns as promises by them
were paid to the complainant and his friend. It is apparent that the
complaints are registered against applicants at other police stations.
The submissions of learned counsel for applicants that element of
cheating or criminal breach of trust is not made out, cannot be
accepted. Hence, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
The application is required to be rejected.
::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 00:40:41 :::
7 of 7 ABA.23.2021.doc
8. Hence, I pass following order :
ORDER
(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No.23 of 2021 is rejected and stands disposed of accordingly.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST ::: Uploaded on - 04/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 00:40:41 :::