Mumbai: A husband-wife duo, directors of an apparel company involved in e-commerce, have been denied anticipatory bail by a special court recently.
Offences had been registered against them for cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy under sections of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (MPID).
As per the complaint registered by one of the investors of the company, the accused, Kunal Jiwarjka, a director of M/s JSK Pvt Ltd, had approached him to facilitate financial assistance for his company. The complainant had helped Jiwarjka get Rs 5 crore loan from a bank. Later, the south-Mumbai resident had promised high returns to the complainant and induced him to become a promoter by making funds for investment, the complaint said.
The complainant and his 35 friends and relatives invested around 9.62 crore in the company, expecting returns to the tune of 18 to 20 per cent. Jiwarjka started defaulting on payment in April last year. The complaint further alleged that apart from these 35 investors, there were another 50 investors who had made another Rs 12.50 crore investment.
In their pre-arrest bail plea, the couple said that it was purely a loan transaction, the complainant is a money lender and that he had approached Jiwarjka to offer financial help. The plea further said that due to poor condition of their business, there was a default of payment, but that was not cheating.
The Economic Offences Wing, which has registered the complaint, opposed the plea and told the court that the custodial interrogation of the duo was required to ascertain the money trail and information of the crime proceeds.
Special judge under the MPID Act GR Agarwal said in his order, “There is prima-facie evidence on record to indicate that the applicants have committed a grave economic offence. There is fraudulent default by the applicants who are the active directors of the accused FE (financial establishment).”
The court found that their custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain the money trail and obtain essential information regarding the misappropriation of the funds of the investors and hence, that they are not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
