[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rajesh S/O. Rameshlal Kriplani vs State Of Maharashtra Thr P.S.O. ... on 23 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14870
1
aba62.2025+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.62/2025
(Hemandas Dayaldas Motwani and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Kapil Nagar,
Nagpur City, Nagpur)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.52/2025
(Rajesh S/o Rameshlal Kriplani Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Kapilnagar Police Station,
Nagpur)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aadil Anwar J. Mirza, Advocate for the
applicants. ..(in ABA No.62/2025)
Mr. S.S. Dewani, Advocate for the applicant. ..(in ABA No.52/2025)
Mr. C.A. Lokhande, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.
Ms. Gauri Venkatraman with Mr. Yash Venkatraman, Advocates to assist the
prosecution.
CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 23.12.2025.
Common order
The applicants are arrested in Crime No.16/2025 for the
offence punishable under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of
Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act and Sections
420, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution story, in brief is as under:-
The informant, Harish Kimmatrao Advani, has alleged that
accused No. 1 Hemandas Dayaldas Motwani and accused No. 2 Tarun
Hemandas Motwani being Directors of M/s. Dwarka Ventures Private
Limited and also accused No.3 Rajesh Kriplani being their Financial
Advisor and Broker approached him and stated that their company
has started a deposit scheme towards the sale of property and coming
up with a group of Housing Project at Mouja Nari Survey Nos.144/02,
145/2, 146/2 147/1, 146/9, 148/12, 142/3, 4, 5, 144/1, 146/3 and
aba62.2025+1.odt
147/2 wherein it has proposed flats and bungalows in block Nos.A to
F. The accused No.3 informed about the project and introduced him
to accused persons who also informed about the same. They told the
informant that they will secure the investment made by him through
an agreement to sell and anybody who would invest in the scheme
shall be gaining huge returns. Investments collected under the
scheme would be invested for work of company by accused Nos.1 and
2 for which board resolution of the company is also passed and said
scheme is for limited time and persons and once the required amount
is collected, the scheme would be closed.
3. The informant, believing upon the false representations made
by accused, executed an agreement with accused Nos.1 and 2 on
11.12.2022 and paid an amount of Rs.36,50,000/- in cash to them at
their booking office. Similarly, he paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- by
cheque favoring the company on 12.12.2022, accused No.3 i.e.
applicant introduced informant with accused Nos.1 and 2 and they
showed him the land on which proposed flats and bungalows would
be constructed. Since the informant is resident of Amravati, he could
not come to Nagpur and, therefore, they executed an agreement to
sell at Amravati. The stamp paper on which the said agreement is
executed is purchased by accused No.3 in the name of M/s. Dwarka
Infra Venture Private Limited. As per scheme proposed by accused
Nos.1 and 3, the informant was allotted flat No.203, C-Wing. As per
the scheme, informant invested Rs.37,00,000/- and he was to get
return of Rs.40,00,000/- on 15.05.2023 and if the company has to
hold the investment then it was to address a letter to informant before
seven days of expiry of said date. Since the informant did not get any
aba62.2025+1.odt
said letter, he through notice dated 29.06.2013 issued to accused
Nos.1 and 2 demanded his amount. However, accused Nos. 1 and 2
replied that they have not received any amount from the informant.
When the informant contacted, accused Nos. 1 and 2 threatened him
and asked to do whatever he can and they have cheated various
persons. Similarly, by same modus operandi the accused have cheated
Smt. Kashish Sandip Advani by Rs.1,17,00,000/-, Shri. Naresh Harish
Advani by Rs.92,00,000/-, Shri. Rahul Harish Advani by
Rs.40,00,000/- and Shri. Sandip Chandrakant Advani by
Rs.45,00,000/-.
4. Apart from informant, others have invested their money with
accused by executing 'agreement of investment cum agreement to
sale'. A huge amount of Rs.3,31,00,000/- is involved in the crime.
Accused have cheated the investors by not returning their amount.
An amount of Rs.3,31,00,000/- is misappropriated by accepting the
deposits from the investors in cash and in bank account. Therefore,
the custody of these applicants is necessary to find out the trail of the
money, also to seize the property and to obtain the signatures of
applicants for the purpose of report from Handwriting Expert.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manohar appearing for the
applicants in Criminal Application (ABA) 62/2025 has argued that
there is a civil transaction between the parties. The applicants and
the complainant initially were partners. The sale transaction is there.
All the documents regarding Retirement of Partnership and
Reconstitution of Partnership are filed on record. It was not an
investment scheme. It was a sale transaction. There was settlement
between the parties. The civil suits are pending between the parties.
aba62.2025+1.odt
The allegations about Section 420 of I.P.C. and registration of the
M.P.I.D. Act is also not correct as the number of civil litigations
between the parties are pending. The agreements are singed by both
the parties. The company petition is also pending about the same
property before the N.C.L.T. The petition for quashing of F.I.R. is also
pending before the Division Bench. Notices are issued in said matter.
There is delay in lodging F.I.R. The complaint is lodged after 2 years
from the date of alleged illegal act. Alleged transaction in question
relates back to the period from November-December 2022 and the
complaint is lodged in July 2024 without explanation of delay.
Considering the civil nature of the offence, prayed to protect the
applicants by granting anticipatory bail.
6. Mr. Dewani, learned Advocate for the applicant in in Criminal
Application (ABA) 52/2025 has adopted the arguments advanced by
the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manohar.
7. Learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that though the
civil transaction is stated to be pending, the applicants have duped
the gullible people, huge amount is involved in the crime. The
applicants are denying the amount given in cash. Number of persons
are duped. To find out where said amount is invested and how many
persons are duped, custodial interrogation of these applicants is
necessary.
8. The complainant appeared through Advocate Mrs. Gauri
Venkatraman and opposed the application stating that this is not a
civil transaction. Though earlier partnership was there, it was
cancelled. All the documents are filed on record. The applicants have
filed on record documents regarding Retirement of Partnership.
aba62.2025+1.odt
Thereafter the agreement for investment and sale is there which itself
shows that such type of agreement cannot be executed. The civil
litigation is filed for the other purpose. The bail cannot be granted at
the initial stage in case of economic offence. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram
V/s. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 wherein
it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Grant of anticipatory
bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating
agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful
information and also the material which might have been concealed.
The applicants have concealed the fact that this is not a sale
transaction. The investment scheme concealed by these applicants
and they are coming before this Court with the case by giving a civil
colour to the criminal proceeding and by taking its disadvantage are
praying for grant of anticipatory bail.
9. It is argued that while considering anticipatory bail in economic
offence the Court must consider the large interest of public. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in Nimmagadda Prasad V/s. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 has observed that while
granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations,
the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.
The Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to
aba62.2025+1.odt
whether there is a genuine case against the accused and the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of
the charge.
10. One of the ground raised by the applicants is that there is
unexplained delay of 2 years. Reliance is also placed on the judgment
in the case of Idmund S. Lyngdoh V/s. State of Meghalaya reported in
(2016) 15 SCC 572 in support of argument that the delay in lodging
the F.I.R. is not fatal to the prosecution case. The learned Advocate
has also relied on the judgment in the case of Grasim Industries
Limited and another Vs. Agrawal Steel reported in (2010) 1 SCC 83.
In the case of Pratibha Manchanda and another V/s. State of Haryana
and another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 181 the Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed that regardless, the pendency of these cases does not
estop the issues of forgery and fabrication being considered in the
course of criminal investigation. The facts of the case speak for
themselves and an element of criminality cannot be ruled out at this
stage. Whether or not the alleged offences were committed by
respondent No. 2 and his co-accused in active collusion with each
other can be effectively determined by a free, fair, unhampered and
dispassionate investigation.
11. By relying on all these above judgments, learned Advocate for
the complainant has stated that custody of these applicants is
necessary as they have committed a fraud of huge amount. Hence,
prayed to reject the application.
12. Heard the respective learned Advocates for the parties and
perused the record.
aba62.2025+1.odt
13. The documents on record show that earlier the applicants were
the partners and the same property was mentioned in their
partnership deed. Thereafter partnership was dissolved. The
documents like Retirement of Partnership and Reconstitution of
Partnership are filed on record. It appears that after executing
documents about partnership all the family members of the applicants
were the partners. Thereafter again deed of retirement of M/s.
Dwarka Developers Private Limited is executed. The
agreement-cum-reconstituted partnership deed is also filed on record.
The agreement of investment-cum-agreement to sell is also filed on
record which is objected by the complainant. According to the
complainant, this is the forged document. There cannot be such
agreement to invest. Many people are duped. Though the notarized
document is filed on record and the photographs of the persons are
there, it is the case of complainant that the applicants have duped all
these persons and for taking specimen signatures of the applicants,
their custody is required as is rightly stated by the learned A.P.P.
14. I have gone through the judgments cited by the complainant
and the requirement for interrogation of the applicants.
15. Considering the pendency of company petition before the
N.C.L.T., civil litigations between the parties though it is stated that
the purpose of said litigation is different the subject matter is same. It
also appears that the matter was sent for mediation for settlement, it
appears that the custodial interrogation of these applicants is not
necessary. Hence the applications are allowed.
i) It is directed that in the event of arrest of the
applicants- Hemandas Dayaldas Motwani, Tarun Hemandas Motwani
aba62.2025+1.odt
and Rajesh S/o Rameshlal Kriplani, in connection with Crime
No.16/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the
Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial
Establishment) Act and Sections 420, 409 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R.
Bond in the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand each with two solvent
sureties in the like amount.
ii) The applicants shall not in any way tamper with the
prosecution evidence.
iii) The applicants shall not pressurize or threaten the prosecution
witnesses.
iv) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station on
every Monday between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. and in addition to
this, the applicants are directed to attend the concerned police station
as and when called by the Investigating Officer for further
investigation.
v) The applicants to attend the concerned police station and give
their specimen signatures before the police.
vi) The applicants to surrender their passports, if any.
vi) The applicants shall not enter the jurisdiction of entire Nagpur
district.
vi) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/12/2025 17:48:53
