The Bombay High Court has clarified that the ability to challenge a verdict through appeal is not a guaranteed fundamental right but a benefit created by law. Justice Amit Borkar made this observation while dismissing the bail plea of Milind Satish Sawant, accused of running a fraudulent investment scheme that left more than 127 people in debt.
Background
Sawant, who headed a company called Mars Finnmart, is accused of convincing ordinary citizens to invest or take loans by promising abnormally high monthly profits. Police investigations revealed that over ₹7 crore was collected under the scheme, but the money was allegedly diverted into personal accounts instead of being invested.
Read Also:-President Confirms Six Additional Judges as Permanent Judges of Bombay High Court.
When the company office suddenly shut, investors found themselves facing loan repayments with no promised returns. FIRs were filed at Bhandup police station, leading to charges under cheating, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, and sections of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (MPID).
His lawyer argued that a Designated Court set up under the MPID Act had no power to try Indian Penal Code (IPC) offences, and doing so would deprive the accused of an appellate remedy before the Sessions Court. This, he claimed, was contrary to the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Borkar rejected these arguments. The Court explained that once a Sessions Court is notified as an MPID Court, it does not lose its original character. Instead, its powers are expanded to also deal with deposit-related offences. “Splitting IPC charges and MPID charges between different courts would create duplication and delay,” the bench said, adding that the Act was designed to speed up trials and protect small depositors.
On the question of appellate remedies, the judge was firm: “The right of appeal is not a constitutional guarantee. It is a creation of statute, and the legislature may decide the forum of appeal depending on the nature of the case.” The Court said that sending appeals directly to a higher court cannot be treated as a violation of fundamental rights.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Rules GST Proceedings Against Hikal Limited Lapsed After Repeal of Disputed Rules
Given the allegations of siphoning investor funds, the scale of the fraud, and Sawant’s past involvement in similar cases, the Court ruled that releasing him would be against public interest. The bail application was therefore rejected, with the Court affirming that MPID-designated courts can hear IPC offences when linked to fraudulent financial dealings.
Case Title: Milind Satish Sawant v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Bail Application No. 1175 of 2025
