‘Further probe required to ascertain active role’: Court refuses pre-arrest bail to Arun Gawli’s son in cheating case

The court passed the order on the anticipatory bail application by Mahesh apprehending his arrest in the case registered at N M Joshi Marg police station for offences punishable under sections 420 (cheating) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. The FIR was registered based on a complaint by a Lower Parel resident.

As per the prosecution, the informant/complainant woman was acquainted with accused Bhakti Kandarkar, who had informed her about various deposit schemes and asked her for investment on the assured interest rate of 10 % per month.

Moreover, her husband Akshay Kandarkar insisted on investment with the promise of an excessive interest rate per month and the woman invested nearly Rs 1.04 crore through various modes of payments.

Moreover, in January 2022, she sold 50 grams gold ornaments and paid an additional amount of Rs 5 lakh to the accused. The prosecution said the accused persons avoided paying the amounts for next two-three years and only returned some amount due to continuous demands by the informant and her husband.

The prosecution further alleged that of the received amount, Bhakti invested Rs 48.5 lakh against the proposed sale transaction of open land at Oundhe village, near Express Highway, Lonavala, with applicant Mahesh Gawli and there was a sale agreement cum memorandum of understanding between informant’s husband and Mahesh for sale of the land. During the probe, prosecution said it was revealed that Rs 13 lakh was received by the applicant from the accused woman.

Therefore, considering multiple transactions between the informant and accused persons and applicant and that the applicant avoided furnishing necessary documents, the police said detailed and minute interrogation was necessary, without which they cannot come to the conclusion.

However, Mahesh through advocate Nitinkumar Sejpal argued that he was not at all concerned with transactions between the accused persons and informant and agreement of sale with the informant and her husband is a different transaction and cannot be clubbed together.

“Prima facie it seems that though applicant has no direct nexus with the transaction of accused persons with the informant but he has entered into transaction with the accused Bhakti Kandarkar,” additional sessions judge R S Aradhye noted in the October 17 order.

Citing “huge invested amount” and “suspicious transactions”, the judge rejected the plea and said “presence of applicant with the police for the purpose of investigation was necessary,” without which they cannot conclude whether he had any active role in the present crime.