Mumbai, May 5: A special MPID court has granted bail to a woman director of a financial establishment accused of duping investors of over Rs 6.7 crore, observing that there was no prima facie evidence
of fraudulent intent from the inception of the transactions.
The court, in its orders, maintained that there is a vague reason regarding non-cooperation without indicating which information the accused had not provided during custody.
Court grants bail to accused director
The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge N.G. Shukla of the MPID Court while allowing the bail application filed by Tejal Siddharth Poladia, who was arrested in April 2026 in connection with a case registered at Kasturba Marg police station.
Advocate for the accused, Mangesh Aarote, while pleading for the bail, said, “The nature of the transaction is of civil dispute and the informant has given colour of criminal nature to the said dispute. There is absence of fraudulent intention since inception as the return benefit was given for a substantial period. Hence, Sec. 318(4) of BNS and Sec. 3 of MPID Act would not attract. For the remaining investigation, further detention of the applicant is not required. There is no single agreement or receipt of investment in cash by the informant and other depositors. The applicant was not involved in day-to-day business of the company. There is not a single rupee received in the personal account of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.”
Prosecution outlines allegations
According to the prosecution, Poladia and her husband, co-directors of Plabita International Pvt. Ltd., allegedly lured investors by promising high monthly returns through an import-export licensing business.
The complainant initially invested Rs 5 lakh in 2021 and reportedly received monthly returns of Rs 12,000. Encouraged by the returns, he went on to invest Rs 1.4 crore, while other investors collectively put in around Rs 5 crore.
The prosecution alleged that returns were paid until August 2025, after which payments stopped. When investors demanded their money, the accused allegedly threatened them, prompting the complaint and subsequent FIR in December 2025.
Court observations on intent and evidence
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution argued that the total investment involved was substantial and that the accused could tamper with evidence or dispose of properties if released.
However, the court noted that the material on record did not indicate that Poladia had independently induced investors or handled the day-to-day affairs of the company. It also observed that investors had received returns for a significant period, which suggested the absence of fraudulent intent at the beginning.
“The FIR itself indicates that returns were paid till August 2025. This prima facie shows that there was no fraudulent intention since inception,” the court observed.
Investigation gaps noted by court
The court, in its orders, has referred to the replies filed by the investigating officer, “The reply does not indicate whether the applicant is a signatory of the bank account. There is a vague reason regarding non-cooperation without indicating which information the applicant had not provided during custody. Bail Application is opposed on the ground that the amount is to be recovered. For such recovery, bail cannot be refused.”
Also Watch:
The judge further pointed out that the investigating officer had not clearly established Poladia’s role in operating bank accounts or managing the company’s finances. The court also held that bail cannot be denied merely on the ground of recovery of money.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
