SACHIN DILIP JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.323 of 2024, registered at Shahupuri Police Station, Satara, for offences punishable under Ss. 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, between the period from 28/4/2023 to 9/2/2024, dishonestly and fraudulently induced the informant to invest substantial sums of money in a purported gold investment scheme, on the false assurance and representation that such investment would yield exceptionally high returns. Relying upon such representations, the informant, on various occasions during the aforesaid period, invested an aggregate amount of Rs.2,27,95,000.00. Despite having received the said funds, the accused persons wilfully failed and neglected to provide any returns or profits as promised. Such conduct, being prima facie fraudulent, gave rise to the present FIR.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant asserts the applicant's innocence and contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime. In the present FIR, all allegations are solely directed against the co-accused, Mayur Phadke, who has already been granted regular bail. The present applicant has not defrauded the first informant in any manner whatsoever. It is the informant's own statement that, as trust developed between him and Mayur Phadke, he voluntarily invested additional amounts with Mayur. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any of the amounts alleged to have been transacted by the informant. The intention or motive to defraud the informant by this applicant is completely absent in the present FIR. The first informant has not transferred even a single penny to the account of the present applicant. The applicant is neither the recipient nor the beneficiary of the alleged amount. All transactions and allegations pertain exclusively to dealings between the first informant and coaccused Mayur. The learned Counsel further submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not at all warranted.