Mumbai, January 16, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Praveen Ramesh Vibhandik, who was arrested in connection with a high-profile land forgery case. The decision was pronounced on January 15, 2024, by Additional Sessions Judge A.A. Kulkarni (Court Room No. 22). The accused was seeking relief under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but his plea was denied based on the severity of the charges and the ongoing investigation.
Case Background
Vibhandik was arrested by the Tilak Nagar Police Station in Mumbai in connection with Crime No. 750/2023. The allegations against him include offenses under Sections 420 (cheating), 447 (criminal trespass), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case stems from an alleged land scam involving falsified ownership documents.
Arguments Presented in Court
Defense’s Argument
Advocate A.M. Purohit, representing the accused, contended that Vibhandik was falsely implicated in the case. He argued that the accused had no involvement in any fraudulent transactions or in forging land documents. According to the defense, the police arrested Vibhandik solely because of his association with his brother, Rajan Gulhane, who is also an accused in the case.
The defense further pointed out that no incriminating evidence had been recovered from Vibhandik and that all necessary recoveries had already been made from Gulhane. They maintained that there was no need for further detention as nothing remained to be seized from the applicant.
Prosecution’s Argument
The prosecution, led by APP J.N. Suryawanshi, opposed the bail plea, asserting that the accused played an active role in the scam. According to the prosecution, Vibhandik and his associates fabricated ownership documents for a government-owned plot located in Chembur, Mumbai. The fraudulent documents were used to claim ownership of the land, which houses the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Deonar Division.
The prosecution emphasized that Vibhandik and other co-accused had allegedly received large sums of money through these illegal transactions. The investigation revealed that Rs. 30 lakh was still unaccounted for and needed to be recovered. Additionally, another accused, Pravin Bibhandik, reportedly confessed to receiving Rs. 75 lakh as part of the fraudulent scheme.
Court’s Observation and Decision
After considering the arguments from both sides, the court ruled against granting bail. Judge Kulkarni noted that the allegations involved serious charges of forgery and financial fraud, which required thorough investigation. The court also pointed out that the case was still in its preliminary stages, and releasing the accused on bail could hinder the investigation.
The judge reviewed the prosecution’s claim that Vibhandik and his associates had fraudulently claimed ownership of a government plot and misrepresented its legal status. The forged documents presented in court strengthened the case against the accused, leading the judge to conclude that Vibhandik’s presence in custody was necessary for further inquiry.
The court observed that if Vibhandik was released at this stage, he could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, thereby obstructing the judicial process. On these grounds, the bail application was rejected.
Implications of the Verdict
The rejection of the bail plea means that Vibhandik will remain in judicial custody as the investigation continues. This case has drawn significant attention due to its implications involving government-owned land and the alleged use of falsified documents to claim ownership. The authorities are expected to intensify their probe into the financial transactions linked to the accused and identify additional individuals who may have been involved in the scam.
Legal experts believe that this decision underscores the judiciary’s stance against financial fraud and forgery, particularly in cases involving government property. The prosecution is likely to push for stringent action against all individuals implicated in the case as new evidence emerges.
Next Steps in the Case
With Vibhandik’s bail denied, the investigation team is expected to continue gathering documentary evidence and tracking financial transactions related to the forged land ownership claims. The prosecution is likely to file additional charges if further complicity is established.
Meanwhile, the accused may explore legal options, including approaching the Bombay High Court for relief. However, given the severity of the allegations and the court’s emphasis on preventing interference with the investigation, securing bail at a higher level may also prove challenging.
Conclusion
The Sessions Court’s ruling in this case sets a strong precedent in land fraud cases, reaffirming the importance of due diligence in real estate transactions. As the case unfolds, more details are expected to emerge regarding the financial network involved in the alleged scam. Until then, Praveen Ramesh Vibhandik remains in custody as investigations continue.
(For further updates on the case, stay tuned to our legal news section.)
