SANTOSH GANPAT MANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been moved by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.624 of 2019 registered with Police Station Shirur, for offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 465, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 3 and 4 of the The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act).

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that the informant and the applicant are acquainted with each other. The applicant is proprietor of Shri. Enterprises and Contractors and doing business of purchase and sale of spare parts / scrap materials with Banglore based company, namely, Wadia Tools and Kenametals India Ltd. The prosecution alleges that applicant posed that he is getting huge amount of funds and huge profit and required large capital and thus demanded money from the informant and induced him to deposit and invest amount from time to time. The informant and his brother-in-law invested Rs.42 lacs with interest at the rate of 10 to 15 % per annum. The prosecution further alleges that both of them demanded money back and the applicant was unable to pay due to financial crisis. Although the applicant issued two cheques to them, the same were dishonoured. During the course of investigation it revealed that the applicant had induced many other people and received amount totalling to Rs.10,29,85,200/-. The applicant had even made forged stamp of the company situated at Banglore and also prepared letter heads of Kenametals India Ltd. and it was shown to investors that he has to receive 53 crores from the said Company. Accordingly, First Information Report (FIR) came to be filed.

(3.) Mr.Rajiv Patil, learned senior counsel, invited my attention to the affidavit of the applicant filed on record for the limited purpose to submit ledger accounts of his business to clarify in which the amount was credited and debited from time to time. Then there are payment details at page 226 to 242. According to the learned senior counsel the applicant has no intention to cheat the investors and is duty bound to repay the invested amount. Investigation is completed. No criminal antecedents are forthcoming. In such circumstances, the applicant deserves to be released on bail, argued learned senior counsel.