Rs 263-crore tax refund ‘fraud’: special court rejects bail plea of IPS officer’s husband
Purushottam Chavan, who was arrested in the Rs 263 crore Income Tax Refund 'fraud' case, said he was not given a chance to explain himself.

A special court dealing with cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on Monday rejected the bail application of Purushottam Chavan, the husband of a senior IPS officer arrested in the Rs 263 crore Income Tax Refund ‘fraud’ case, stating that there is prima facie evidence that he received the proceeds of the crime.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested Chavan in May this year. The agency has claimed that Tanaji Adhikari, a former senior tax assistant, was allegedly involved in fraudulently generating and issuing tax deducted at source (TDS) refunds from the Income-Tax Department to the tune of Rs 263.95 crore, along with other accused.
In his bail plea, Chavan said he was not named in the First Information Report (FIR) or the first chargesheet and the only evidence cited against him is the statement of a co-accused. He also submitted that he was not given a chance to explain himself and there is no evidence to show his involvement in the layering of the funds.
ED has claimed that a co-accused Rajesh Batreja had paid Chavan Rs 10.40 crore from time to time, received from Adhikari, and that they had helped in laundering the proceeds of crime. The central agency also alleged that Chavan set up a company in Dubai and that money was withdrawn from a bank account of Batreja, which ED claimed, showed that there was a motive to divert and conceal proceeds of crime.
Special Judge A C Daga said other than the statement of co-accused there was prima facie proof against Chavan. “The statement of co-accused Rajesh Batreja recorded…goes to show that it was assured by the applicant/accused that he will get his case settled for Rs.11 crore and he made payment of Rs.10.40 crore to the applicant/accused,” the court said in a detailed order made available on Tuesday.
While Chavan also sought bail on the grounds of ill health, the court said nothing on record shows that he needs hospitalisation. “It is settled law that merely for asking no sick or infirm person is required to be released on bail. The nature of sickness, its effect on the accused has to be taken into consideration. In this matter, nothing before me which goes to show that the health of the applicant/accused has deteriorated because of incarceration,” the court said.