PUNE: Special judge for MPID Act JT Utpat on Wednesday held that the interest of thousands of depositors of the DSK group can only be safeguarded by conducting a proper probe into the complaints against it.
The judge rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of builder and founder of the group, D S Kulkarni, also known as DSK, and his wife, Hemanti, in a case of cheating, criminal breach of trust and offences under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID)Act lodged by a depositor.
"This is not at all a fit case to grant interim anticipatory bail," the judge said, referring to the fact that "large number of investors are coming forward to complain about the cheating by DSK group, the gravity and magnitude of the charges alleged against the accused and the applicants' admission that they owe Rs 209 crore to the depositors".
Judge Utpat also rejected a subsequent plea for continuation of the interim protection against coercive action by the police to enable the applicants move the Bombay high court. Additional public prosecutor Sunil Hande said it would lead to the possibility of absconding by the accused.
Judge Utpat held, "Protection of the interest of the depositors is of prime consideration and for that purpose, the investigating officer will have to see how the said interest of the said depositors can be protected. It prima facie appears that hundreds and thousands of depositors of DSK group are in panic for not getting their amount of deposits and therefore, their interest can only be safeguarded by conducting proper investigation."
Referring to Section 3 of the MPID Act, the judge cited an HC ruling defining the term "financial establishment" as "any person accepting any deposit under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner" and ruled that prima facie it can't be said that the provisions of the MPID Act cannot be invoked in the present case.
On defence lawyer Shrikant Shivade's argument that a conditional interim anticipatory bail be granted, he said, "On the basis of mere allegation and counter-allegations, this court is not in a position to find out prima facie whether the offences alleged against the accused are made out or not. Further more, this exercise is not expected to be done by this court at the very threshold."
The judge rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of builder and founder of the group, D S Kulkarni, also known as DSK, and his wife, Hemanti, in a case of cheating, criminal breach of trust and offences under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID)Act lodged by a depositor.
"This is not at all a fit case to grant interim anticipatory bail," the judge said, referring to the fact that "large number of investors are coming forward to complain about the cheating by DSK group, the gravity and magnitude of the charges alleged against the accused and the applicants' admission that they owe Rs 209 crore to the depositors".
Judge Utpat also rejected a subsequent plea for continuation of the interim protection against coercive action by the police to enable the applicants move the Bombay high court. Additional public prosecutor Sunil Hande said it would lead to the possibility of absconding by the accused.
Judge Utpat held, "Protection of the interest of the depositors is of prime consideration and for that purpose, the investigating officer will have to see how the said interest of the said depositors can be protected. It prima facie appears that hundreds and thousands of depositors of DSK group are in panic for not getting their amount of deposits and therefore, their interest can only be safeguarded by conducting proper investigation."
Referring to Section 3 of the MPID Act, the judge cited an HC ruling defining the term "financial establishment" as "any person accepting any deposit under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner" and ruled that prima facie it can't be said that the provisions of the MPID Act cannot be invoked in the present case.
On defence lawyer Shrikant Shivade's argument that a conditional interim anticipatory bail be granted, he said, "On the basis of mere allegation and counter-allegations, this court is not in a position to find out prima facie whether the offences alleged against the accused are made out or not. Further more, this exercise is not expected to be done by this court at the very threshold."
Get latest news & live updates on the go on your pc with News App. Download The Times of India news app for your device.
