Soniya W/O. Somnath Raut vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 5743 Bom

                                                                      ABA638.22
                                      (1)

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           903 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.638 OF 2022

                           SONIYA W/O. SOMNATH RAUT
                                     VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

 Mr. H.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant;
 Mr. V.M. Kagne, A.P.P. for respondent

                                  CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 23rd June, 2022

P.C.

1. By this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the applicant seeks his release on bail in C.R. No.1046 of

2021, registered with Tophkhana police station, Ahmednagar, for

offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Maharashtra

Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act,

1999 (for short "MPID Act").

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned

A.P.P. for the respondent.

ABA638.22

3. The learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the

applicant is the wife of the main accused. She is the sleeping director.

She never acted as the Director of the company, a financial

establishment where the depositors have invested money. He also

added that the husband brought the applicant in problem. She was

unaware of the business of her husband. The material on record does

not reveal that the applicant has played active role. She had never

the control over the business run by her husband. The company by

name "Fund Pay" is a proprietary firm and her husband is the sole

proprietor of the firm. There were no transactions with the company

of which the present applicant is a director. Therefore, she cannot be

connected with the alleged offence.

4. The learned Counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment of

this Court in the matter of Archana Salaskar vs. State of Maharashtra,

2021 All.M.R. (Cri.) 254 and vehemently argued that the allegations

leveled against the applicant are not specific. The main

representation was made by the husband of the applicant. He prayed

to allow the application and release the applicant on anticipatory bail.

ABA638.22

5. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. has vehemently argued that this

is an economic offence. The "Fund Pay" company is a sister concern of

the company "Big Me" of which the applicant is a director. A huge

amount of more than 7 Crore has been misappropriated under the

false promise to return the deposited amount with lucrative returns.

The modus operandi of the applicant was to pay exorbitant returns in

short time and instigate the depositors to invest more and more

money and lastly stop paying returns. The accused fled away with the

deposits of the investors. Till this time there is no response from the

accused-husband, where he has invested the money. Police are not

getting any clue in that respect. There is a great possibility of

purchasing the property in the name of the present applicant or her

close relatives. He would submit that the offence is economic. The

Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation, 2013 AIR (SC) 2821 has taken a

strict view that the offenders in economic offences should be dealt

with strictly for the reasons that, that poses a serious threat to the

financial health of the country.

6. That apart, severity of the punishment should also be

ABA638.22

considered. While dealing with the grant of bail, Court should satisfy,

whether there is genuine case against the accused and the prosecution

is able to produce sufficient evidence in support of the charge. It is

not expected at the stage of bail to have evidence establishing guilt of

the accused beyond the reasonable doubt.

7. The applicant has not disputed that she is the director of the

company, namely, "Big Me". The averments in the first information

report reveal that under the lucrative promises of returns, a huge

amount was collected by the said company. It has been transpired in

the investigation that "Fund Pay" company is a sister concern of "Big

Me". This sister concern is a proprietary firm run by the husband of

the applicant. Huge amount has been siphoned from collecting the

same from the depositors under the false promise of huge returns.

Apparently, this is an economic offence and it would certainly threat

the financial health of the country and it may cause huge loss to the

public funds. Cheating such a way to the innocent investors should be

viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the

economy of the country as a whole. The learned A.P.P. relying on

the case of Nimmagadda (supra), has rightly pointed out the view to

ABA638.22

be taken by the Court while considering bail applications in economic

offences.

8. As far as the responsibility under the MPID Act is concerned,

Section 3 is very specific that every person including the promoter,

partner, director, manager or any other person or an employee

responsible for the management of or conducting of the business or

affairs of such financial establishment fraudulently commits default in

repayment of the deposit on maturity along with any benefit in the

form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form as promised or

fraudulently fails to render services as assured against the depositors

are guilty of the economic offences. The applicant has a defence that

she was a sleeping director. However, considering the words of

Section 3 of the MPID Act, every person including director shall be

responsible for the fraudulent defaults, the applicant has no case that

any time before she has resisted the business done by her husband,

being the co-director of the company and she has resigned.

9. After having gone through the first information report, it is

clear that the company of the applicant has made impractical and

ABA638.22

commercially not viable promises in the form of returns on the

deposits. Considering the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex

Court in the case of Nimmagadda (supra) and section 3 of the MPID

Act along with the admitted position of accepting the deposits under

impracticable and commercially not viable promises, there appears no

ground to consider the prayer of the applicant for anticipatory bail.

10. As far as the case law relied by the applicant is concerned, the

facts of that case were altogether different. It was an application for

regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Hence, the case cited by the applicant's counsel would not help the

applicant.

11. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that there

is no substance in the application. Hence, the application stands

rejected.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)

amj