1BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER THE M.P.I.D. ACT AT BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI BAIL APPLICATION No.49 OF 2016 IN MPID CASE No.1 OF 2017 (C.R. No.78/2013) WITH BAIL APPLICATION No.183 OF 2017 IN MPID CASE No.1 OF 2017 (C.R. No.78/2013) AND BELOW EXHIBIT 10 IN MPID CASE No.1 OF 2017 (C.R. No.78/2013) Srinivas Rao Vanka. (A4) Magaral Balaji. (A5) Aditi Mitra. ... Applicants. Accused. Versus. State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. 2 Appearance : Adv. Karnik for the applicant. Adv. Sudutta Patil for the applicant. Adv. Negi for the applicant. SPP Adv. Gharat for the State. Coram : Dinesh P. Surana. Spl. Judge, MPID Act. (Court Room no.36) Dated : 30.03.2017 COMMON ORDER These are the bail applications filed u/sec.439 of the Cr.P.C. by the accused Srinivas Rao Vanka (A4), Magaral Balaji. (A5) and accused Aditi Mitra in C.R. No.78 of 2013, under investigation with EOW, SIT Qnet, Mumbai. 2. Heard Adv. Abbada Ponda i/b Adv. Karnik and Adv. Patil and Adv. Negi for the applicants. Also heard SPP Adv. Gharat for the State. The intervention application filed by informant Gurupreetsingh Anand was allowed. He too was granted limited time to argue. As such, also heard intervener informant Gurupreetsingh Anand. Adv. Ponda and Adv. Negi submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to grant bail to Michael Joseph Ferreira (A2) and Malckolm Nozer Desai (A3) in Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No.(s). 31/2017, Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd & Ors. ..Petitioner(s) Versus. Union of India and Ors. ..Respondent(s), (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report) by order dated 27.03.2017. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was also pleased to stay further proceeding in all 19 FIRs including FIR under investigation with EOW, Mumbai. He submitted that 3 applicants too are entitled to be released on bail. 3. As against this SPP Adv. Gharat insisted for imposed rigid condition on the applicants. 4. Intervener informant Gurupreetsingh Anand opposed the application on the ground that investigation is not stayed by Hon'ble Apex Court. That, applicants are not entitle to be released on bail. That, if they are released on bail, they will continue the illegal activities. That, applicants were not the petitioners before the Hon'ble Apex Court and now the Hon'ble Apex Court is seized with the matter and hence, this court has no power to grant bail to the applicants. He further submitted that applicants should approached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court only for seeking any relief. SPP and informant in one voice contended that applicants Srinivas Rao Vanka (A4) and Magaral Balaji. (A5) are also be ordered to deposit Rs.1.40 Crores and 1.04 Crores, i.e., the amount of crime proceed, which they have received. Informant also submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held the activities of Qnet as illegal which was conformed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, the illegal activities should not be continued. Informant prayed for rejection of the bail application. 5. On perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra, it is specifically mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, that there shall be stay in further proceeding in all 19 FIR's. In prayer clause 'c' of the petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of 4 India, the FIR of EOW, Mumbai is also mentioned. As such, it is clear that till the final hearing and final disposal of the petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the further proceeding in all the 19 FIRs, including the present one, is stayed. Informant contended that Hon'ble Apex Court has imposed condition on Michael Joseph Ferreira (A2) and Malckolm Nozer Desai (A3) to cooperate in the investigation of the case, which means that the investigation is not stayed. However, the point for determination before this court is limited, as to whether, in view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 27.03.2017 cited supra, the applications are entitle to be released on bail or not. 6. In the order cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, has not taken away the powers of this designated court u/sec.439 of Cr.P.C. On the contrary has granted liberty to this court to impose suitable other conditions. As such, this court has every power to decide the bail application of the accused. 7. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has already granted bail to the coaccused Michael Joseph Ferreira (A2) and Malckolm Nozer Desai (A3), who are alleged promoter and 80% to 20% share holders of M/s. Vihan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd., the law of parity will also be applicable to the applicants, who are directors of Vihan or the IR and trainer of the Qnet. The role of the applicants, as regards sec.3 of the MPID Act is concerned, being Director, IR or trainer will be less to the role of Michael Joseph Ferreira (A2) and Malckolm Nozer Desai (A3). So also, when the order of Hon'ble 5 Apex Court is very clear that, there shall be stay on further proceeding in all the 19 FIR's pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, there is no propriety in keeping the applicants too behind the bars. As such, I am of the view that with strict conditions applicants too are entitle to be released on bail. 8. I would also like to mention here that primafacie the activities of Qnet seems to be not legal. The reasons for the same is already discussed in the bail orders of the coaccused. Hence, pending the final hearing of the petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, they cannot be allowed to continue with the same or smiler or like illegal activities. Adv. Ponda contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Munish Bhasin and Ors., V/s. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 56 has laid down the ratio as to which condition can be imposed while granting bail to accused. However, even as per sec.437 of the Cr.P.C. such condition can be imposed. The applications are filed u/sec.439 of the Cr.P.C and not u/sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is in respect of the conditions to be imposed while granting anticipatory bail to the accused u/sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. As such, it is necessary, to impose conditions on the applicants accused not to indulge in similar or like activities. Such condition will always be subject to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or modified by this designated court. As such, I am of the view that applicants are entitled to be released on bail. In the result, I proceed to pass 6 following order. O R D E R 1. Application are allowed. 2. Applicants Srinivas Rao Vanka. (A4), Magaral V. Balaji. (A5) and Aditi Mitra are ordered to be released on bail in C.R. No. 78 of 2013 under investigation with EOW, Mumbai for the offence punishable u/sec.409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B and sec.201 of the I.P. Code and sec.3 of the MPID Act, on their executing PB of Rs.25,000/ each with 2 sureties each of the like amount with following condition: 1. Applicant shall mark their presence before the I.O. at the office of EOW, SIT Qnet, Mumbai, once in a month on first Monday between 10 am to 1 pm and as and when called by the investigating agency in writing. 2. Applicants would produce their latest and full residential address with the I.O. and shall not change their address without the prior permission of this Court. 3. Applicants to surrender their passport with the I.O. if, already not seized by the investigating agency. 4. Applicants shall not, without the permission of this designated court, leave India. 5. Applicants shall not in any manner dispose off their any movable property about Rs.10,000/ a week and immovable property/ies of any value without the permission of this designated court. 6. Applicants shall cooperate with the investigating agency. 7 7. Applicant shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution witnesses or evidence. 8. Applicants shall not in any manner indulge or like similar activities of Qnet. 9. Breach of the condition no.8 by the applicants will be the sole ground for cancellation of their bail. Date 30.03.2017 (D.P. Surana) Special Judge, M.P.I.D. Act. & Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, At Bombay. Order Dictated on : 30.03.2017 Transcribed on : 30.03.2017 Signed on : 30.03.2017 8 “CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT /ORDER” On 31.03.2017 at 05.00 p.m. Mrs. V. N. Rajgole. UPLOADED DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) H.H.J. Shri D.P. Surana, C.R. No.36 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 30.03.2017 Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on 30.03.2017 Judgment/Order uploaded on 31.03.2017 9