Mumbai, January 29, 2024 — In a notable development, the Sessions Court of Greater Bombay granted bail to Deepak Prataprai Dani, an accused in a high-profile case of forgery and financial fraud involving loans worth Rs. 1.32 crore. The case, registered under C.R. No. 192 of 2023 with Dadar Police Station, revolved around the submission of forged Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) policies to secure substantial bank loans.

The Case Overview

The alleged scheme was orchestrated by key accused Rani Durairaj and Sonali Borse, who posed as loan agents. Using falsified LIC policy documents, the duo managed to dupe Punjab and Sind Bank’s Prabhadevi branch into sanctioning loans under the guise of legitimate borrowers. Dani, along with other co-accused, reportedly submitted these forged documents, resulting in the disbursement of Rs. 1.32 crore.

According to the complaint filed by the bank manager, the policies submitted were either lapsed, forged, or issued in the names of unrelated individuals. The scheme unraveled when the borrowers defaulted on repayments, prompting the bank to verify the policies. It was then discovered that the LIC policy linked to Dani was entirely fabricated. Following the revelations, an FIR was registered on April 21, 2023.

Arguments in Court

The prosecution opposed the bail application on several grounds, asserting Dani’s complicity in the fraud and potential flight risk. They alleged that:

1. Dani personally submitted forged documents, including his Aadhaar and PAN cards, to secure the loan.
2. The sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 30 lakh was transferred to third-party accounts via RTGS, implicating Dani in money diversion.
3. Dani provided a false address, raising concerns about his reliability and intentions.
4. He absconded after receiving a notice under Section 41(A)(1) of the CrPC, further indicating a risk of fleeing justice.
5. Additional cases of financial fraud were registered against Dani in Maharashtra and Gujarat, suggesting a pattern of criminal behavior.

Defense counsel Kapil Dave argued that Dani was a victim of the conspiracy orchestrated by the primary accused, Durairaj and Borse. Dani claimed he was in financial distress and had unknowingly handed over his personal documents to Durairaj, who manipulated them for fraudulent purposes. The defense highlighted that Dani received only Rs. 1.5 lakh from the scheme, which he was willing to repay to the bank.

It was also contended that the primary accused, Durairaj and Borse, were the masterminds behind the forgery, exploiting Dani and others for their financial benefit. The defense emphasized that Dani’s involvement was minimal, and he had cooperated with the investigation, which was now complete.

Court’s Findings

Presiding over the case, Additional Sessions Judge Shri S.B. Pawar acknowledged the gravity of the charges but differentiated Dani’s role from that of the primary accused. The court observed:

1. Dani was not the primary beneficiary of the fraud, as the substantial amounts were transferred to accounts controlled by Durairaj and Borse.
2. The charge sheet indicated that Dani received only a small portion of the loan amount and was not the main conspirator.
3. Dani had provided an undertaking to repay the amount he received.

Given the completion of the investigation and Dani’s willingness to comply with conditions, the court deemed him eligible for bail.

Bail Conditions

Dani was granted bail on the following terms:

• A personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• He must not contact prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence.
• He is required to provide his permanent address and attend trial regularly.
• Any breach of these conditions would result in the cancellation of his bail.

Conclusion

While the court’s decision provides temporary relief for Dani, the case underscores the rising threat of financial frauds targeting banks. The investigation into the broader conspiracy and the roles of Durairaj, Borse, and other accused continues. The case serves as a stark reminder of the need for stringent checks and balances in financial institutions to prevent such scams.

This ruling highlights the judicial balance between ensuring justice and safeguarding individual rights, even as the trial progresses in what is shaping up to be a landmark case in financial fraud jurisprudence.