Mumbai, April 4, 2024 – The Mumbai Sessions Court has rejected the bail application of businessman Dhawal Kiran Shah in connection with an alleged multi-crore economic fraud. The case, registered under C.R. No. 801/2023 at Park Site Police Station, involves serious allegations under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Court’s Decision
In the order dated April 2, 2024, Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire ruled that the nature of the economic crime, coupled with Shah’s alleged involvement in multiple similar offenses, warranted the rejection of bail. The prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutors S.V. Kekanis and Manisha J. Parmar, strongly opposed the application, emphasizing the severity of the fraud and the risk of evidence tampering.
Background of the Case
The case was filed by complainant Nimesh Balwantrai Dani, who alleged that Shah, in collusion with co-accused Vaishali Manjrekar, defrauded him and others through a fraudulent business transaction. Manjrekar, who was serving as a Superintendent at Kendriya Bhandar, Goa, allegedly manipulated a tender process by mandating the purchase of specific materials from Shah’s company.
According to the prosecution, Shah and Manjrekar fabricated false invoices, forged documents, and lured the complainant into disbursing Rs. 3.26 crore through New Bharat Cylinder LLP. The amount was allegedly transferred to Shah’s accounts and subsequently siphoned off.
Investigation Findings
The court noted that Shah was absconding after the FIR was registered on December 26, 2023. He was arrested on January 21, 2024, after his anticipatory bail application was rejected on January 9, 2024.
Despite the submission of the charge sheet on March 19, 2024, the court found significant grounds to deny bail. The prosecution argued that similar offenses were registered against Shah in Maharashtra and other states, and his financial records showed clear evidence of fund diversion.
Defense’s Argument
Shah’s defense team, led by Advocate Mohite and Advocate Jadhav, contended that the dispute was civil in nature, arising from a contractual transaction. They claimed that Shah had fulfilled his obligations and was being falsely implicated. They also argued that the charge sheet had already been filed, reducing the necessity for further detention.
Court’s Observations
The court, however, dismissed these claims, citing evidence that suggested a well-planned fraudulent scheme. It highlighted the seriousness of the economic offense, the risk of Shah influencing witnesses, and the fact that co-accused Vaishali Manjrekar was still absconding. Additionally, the court noted that although Shah’s bank accounts were frozen, the siphoned funds were not recoverable.
Conclusion
Given the gravity of the offense and the strong evidence presented by the prosecution, the Sessions Court concluded that Shah did not merit bail at this stage. His application was thus rejected, and he remains in judicial custody while the investigation continues.
For more updates on this case, stay tuned.