Bombay High Court
ZAFAR MEHENDI WASIK HAIDERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The bail application was dismissed as the applicant failed to make out a case for bail.
Summary
The applicant, Zafar Mehendi Wasik Haider, sought bail for offences under the BNS Act, 2023 and the MPID Act, 1999 arising from a complaint that he, as promoter‑director of High Vincent Pvt Ltd, induced a scrap dealer to invest money with promises of returns, which later defaulted. The prosecution alleged that the company accepted public deposits, issued cheques that were dishonoured, and that the applicant actively participated in the scheme, as evidenced by an undertaking he gave on behalf of the company. The applicant contended that he was merely a non‑executive director, was implicated only because he is the brother of a co‑accused, and that the matter is essentially a civil dispute; he also invoked parity with bail granted to other co‑accused. The court examined the chargesheet, finding documentary evidence of the applicant’s role as promoter‑director and his undertaking not to accept deposits without compliance with the Companies Act, 2013, thereby rejecting the claim of non‑involvement. Consequently, the court held that the applicant failed to establish a case for bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant’s role as promoter‑director of the company makes him liable for the offences under the BNS Act and MPID Act.
- Whether the provisions of the MPID Act, 1999 are applicable to the facts of the case.
- Whether bail should be granted on the basis of parity with co‑accused who have been released.
- Whether the dispute is a civil matter disguised as a criminal offence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- cheating
- deposit scheme
- MPID Act
- company promoter
- civil vs criminal
- parity
- high court
Judgment
40-BA-4834-2025
Navnath Waghmare
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4834 OF 2025
Zafar Mehendi Wasik Haider …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Mubin Solkar, Tahir Hussain, Anas Shaikh for the Applicant.
Mr. A.R. Kapadnis "B" Panel counsel for Respondent
Mr. Rushit P. Thakkar for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 08th APRIL, 2026
PC:-
1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on
bail in connection with C. R. No. 664 of 2025, registered with
Bhiwandi City Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(2) , 318(4), 351(2), 352 of the BNS Act, 2023 and
offence under section 3 of MPID Act 1999.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint was
lodged by the informant, who is engaged in the business of selling
scrap material. It is alleged that on 17/04/2023, while the
Page 1 of 6
08th APRIL, 2026
40-BA-4834-2025
Navnath Waghmare
complainant was present at his shop, one Ramsuresh Varma, who
is known to him, visited along with one co-accused, namely Shafiq
Wasik Haider. The said Ramsuresh Varma introduced the co-
accused to the complainant as a Director of a High Vincent Pvt.
Ltd, stating that he owned power looms at Bhiwandi and also
operated a pathology laboratory at Ulhasnagar. It is further alleged
that the accused persons induced the complainant to invest money
in their business ventures by assuring that a return of 10% profit
on the principal investment would be paid. Acting upon such
representations, the complainant allegedly invested amounts with
the accused persons. Subsequently, it is alleged that as the accused
failed to return the invested amount along with the promised
returns, thereby cheating the complainant. Thus, the present crime
came to be registered and the charge-sheet came to be filed against
the present Applicant, and he is presently in judicial custody.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that present
Applicant is implicated only by the reason that he is the brother of
other co-accused, namely Shafiq Haider. He also submits that there
is delay of 8 months in registering FIR and the applicant was never
named in the said FIR or the supplementary statement recorded, so
Page 2 of 6
08th APRIL, 2026
40-BA-4834-2025
Navnath Waghmare
also it's contended that this is a purely civil dispute and only to
recover the unpaid dues, this is being given a cloak of criminal
offence by alleging cheating and invoking offence under MPID Act.
According to him the co-accused is granted bail by Sessions Court
and another accused is granted pre-arrest bail by Hon'ble High
Court.
4. He therefore seeks bail on parity. On merits, it is argued
that applicant has never sought any investment from any investors
or any documents in connection to Financial Establishment, so he
cannot be implicated as an accused in the present crime and that
he was only a non-executive director of the Financial
Establishment and had no knowledge of day to day functioning of
the company. According to him, the trial is not likely to complete
within reasonable time.
5. The learned APP and the counsel for the informant
opposed the above submissions and supported the order passed by
Trial Court and points out the role of applicant to substantiate that
this is not the case of bail being extended to the applicant. In this
regard reference made to various documents in the chargesheet
showing active participation of the applicant in crime.
Page 3 of 6
08th APRIL, 2026
40-BA-4834-2025
Navnath Waghmare
6. Pirma-facie, this court has to see as to whether the
provisions of Sections of MPID act would have application to the
present case and that involvement of the applicant in the crime in
question is seen or not.
7. Perusal of the chargesheet indicates that High Vincent
Private Limited accepted deposits from the informant and others,
assuring them of handsome returns thereon. The fact of receipt of
the deposits is not in dispute more so it cannot be disputed in view
of the fact that against the repayment of the deposits, cheques
were issued on behalf of the company which were disonoured. This
fact support the contention of informant with regard to them being
induced to deposit the amount with no intention to return the
same as assured. This fact also explains the alleged delay was in
lodging of the First Information Report.
8. Now question arises as to whether there is role of the
present applicant in the crime in question and as to whether there
is any material in the chargesheet to indicate so. Record shows that
the applicant is the Promoter-Director of the company. The
Page 4 of 6
08th APRIL, 2026
40-BA-4834-2025
Navnath Waghmare
company came to be established and registered at his instance.
There is further documentary evidence on record to indicate that
an undertaking given by the applicant on behalf of the company to
the effect that the company shall not and will not accept public
deposits unless comply provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and
other relevant laws. Submission of an undertaking so also the fact
that the applicant is Promoter of the company indicates that his
active involvement in the affairs of the company, this cannot be
said that the applicant has no concern with the activities of the
company.
9. Learned counsel for the Applicant has clarified that
inadvertantly it was mentioned in the application that the
applicant is Non-Executive Director. Though, it was stated so, the
counsel for the applicant deserves to be given benefit of doubt for
making such statement, thus, though the application does not
deserve to be rejected on that count. On merit of the case,
applicant has failed to make out any case for grant of bail.
10. In so far as the claim of parity sought by the applicant.
Perusal of the orders passed in favour of the co-accused granting
regular bail as well as Anticipatory Bail indicates that the role
Page 5 of 6
08th APRIL, 2026
40-BA-4834-2025
Navnath Waghmare
attributed to the their case is entirely different than the present
applicant. One of the accused granted bail is a lady. Needless to say
that the said accused persons were promoter of the company nor
there is anything on record to indicate that they undertook not to
accept the deposits unless compliance of the law is made thus this
is not a case of applying party to grant bail to the applicant.
11. Consequently, applicant has failed to make out any case for
grant of bail.
12. Application therefore, stands dismissed.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Page 6 of 6
08th APRIL, 2026
Checking your session…