Accused’s Role Limited to Sharing Information on Laptop — No Custodial Interrogation Required: Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.13 Crore Ponzi Scheme

“Entire Amount Deposited Before Court, Main Accused on Bail — Balance of Convenience Tilts in Favour of Granting Pre-Arrest Protection” - In a significant order Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to Balasaheb Shivaji Jagtap, an accused in a ₹1.13 crore investment fraud case, holding that his role was limited, and custodial interrogation was not necessary, especially since the entire amount involved was already deposited for investor refund.

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, “The only allegation against the applicant is that he gave information regarding the said investment on a laptop to the investors. The main accused are already granted anticipatory bail. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation is not required.”

The ruling underscores the importance of proportionality in pre-arrest bail cases, especially where economic offences are alleged, but the accused’s participation is peripheral, and the principal wrongdoers have already secured relief.

“In Financial Fraud, Role Matters — Not Everyone in the Chain Is Equally Liable”: High Court Distinguishes Active Perpetrators from Peripheral Participants

The matter arose out of C.R. No. 71 of 2023 registered with Gangapur Police Station, Nashik, under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).

The case pertained to a Ponzi-like scheme run through a company called Real Recharge and Marketing, which accepted investments from the public by offering unusually high interest returns. The total investment allegedly collected was over ₹1.13 crore.

While the primary accused (a couple — Dnyaneshwar and Nikita) had already been granted anticipatory bail after depositing the entire defrauded amount with the Sessions Court, the present applicant — Accused No. 3, Balasaheb Shivaji Jagtap — sought similar relief, claiming no direct involvement in the operation or management of the scheme.

“Merely Disseminating Investment Information Does Not Imply Active Conspiracy” — Allegation Against Applicant Found Minimal

During the hearing, Justice Jamdar noted that the allegation against the applicant was limited to sharing investment information via laptop, and no evidence had been placed on record suggesting deeper involvement in the orchestration or execution of the alleged fraudulent scheme.

The Court recorded: “As far as the present Applicant is concerned, the only allegation is that he has given information regarding the said investment on a laptop to the investors.”

The prosecution did not dispute that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents, and that he was not a signatory or office bearer of the company which accepted the deposits

“When Entire Amount Has Been Deposited, Investor Interest Is Protected — This Becomes a Relevant Factor for Bail”

Significantly, the Court placed weight on the fact that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had already deposited the entire amount of ₹1.13 crore before the Sessions Court, and had no objection to its refund to the investors. This, the Court held, mitigated the financial injury suffered by the complainants.

Justice Jamdar observed: “The amount involved in the crime is already deposited before the learned Sessions Court, and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have given no objection for refund. Thus, the interest of the investors is protected.”

This finding tilted the balance of convenience in favour of the applicant, especially when the co-accused had already secured pre-arrest relief, and the applicant’s alleged role did not involve handling funds or inducement.

“Prior Application Withdrawn to Rectify Omission — Present Plea Not Barred”: Court Notes No Suppression or Abuse of Process

The Court also clarified that the present anticipatory bail plea was not barred by the earlier application, which had been withdrawn to correct procedural omission — namely, non-inclusion of antecedent details.

The previous application (ABA No. 615 of 2025) had granted interim protection, but was voluntarily withdrawn. The Court noted that the current plea had been filed with full disclosures, and was entitled to consideration on merits.

Anticipatory Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions

Concluding that no custodial interrogation was necessary, the High Court allowed the application and issued the following directions:

“In the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection with C.R. No.71 of 2023, he shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.”

The anticipatory bail was subject to strict compliance conditions, including:

• Full cooperation with the investigation and appearance before police as required

• Non-interference with witnesses or tampering with evidence

• Not leaving India without prior permission of the Court

• Keeping contact details updated with the Investigating Officer

The Court concluded: “Accordingly, the case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. The application is disposed of accordingly.”

This judgment reinforces the principle that in economic offences, not all accused are equally culpable, and that anticipatory bail must be assessed on the basis of individual role, evidentiary need, and impact on victims.

By taking into account the limited role of the applicant, the refund of defrauded funds, and the grant of bail to principal conspirators, the Bombay High Court has applied a measured and proportionate approach under Section 438 CrPC.

Date of Decision: 01 October 2025