The prosecution case explained how the complainant, a government servant, was induced by a friend to invest in a scheme floated by Mars Finnmart. The accused, presenting themselves as money experts, assured a regular 5% monthly return and even arranged bank loans in the name of the complainant, guaranteeing that installments would be managed. Relying on these guarantees, the documents of the complainant were gathered, loans authorized, and an amount of approximately Rs. 38 lakhs transferred into his account, out of which Rs. 34.30 lakhs were immediately transferred to the account of the applicant. Agreements and a cheque were given in guarantee of monthly returns, but nothing materialized after an initial payment. Later, Mars Finnmart's office was closed, and it was revealed that some others were also cheated similarly.

The learned advocate for the petitioner raised several grounds: that the Designated Court under the MPID Act had no jurisdiction to prosecute IPC offences; that such offences as conspiracy were misconstrued; that part repayments had already been effected; that some complaints remained untested by way of witness statements; and that identical allegations in another FIR had previously led to bail. He also based his argument on precedents such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI to contend that pre-trial detention should not replace punishment.

The prosecution, nevertheless, resisted granting of bail, highlighting the seriousness and magnitude of fraud. It was argued that over 127 investors were induced to part with amounts totaling around Rs. 7.29 crores, with the applicant diverting substantial amounts to personal benefit. The prosecution highlighted that the applicant was a repeat offender with earlier cases of similar nature, and cautioned against risk of recidivism if enlarged on bail.

The Court also discarded reliance on parity with an earlier bail order, observing the current case concerned much larger amounts and much more victims. Relying upon precedents to the effect that economic offences with deeply entrenched conspiracies are on a different footing because of their impact on public confidence and the financial system, the Court did not see any exceptional or mitigating circumstances to justify release.

In accordance, the application for bail was denied.