Mumbai, May 2, 2024 – The Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire (Court Room No. 60) rejected the bail application of Virendra Harikishan Dahikar in connection with a Rs. 5.6 crore fraud case registered with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) (C.R. No. 33/2021). The court cited Dahikar’s direct involvement in transferring a significant portion of the defrauded amount and his potential flight risk as reasons for denying bail.
Background of the Case:
Virendra Harikishan Dahikar, a 38-year-old resident of Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, was arrested for his alleged involvement in a fraud case where approximately Rs. 5.6 crores were misappropriated from the Railway Goods Clearing and Forwarding Establishments Labour Board, Mumbai. The prosecution alleged that Dahikar and his co-accused prepared forged negotiable instruments of Bank of Baroda and used them to transfer funds from the Labour Board’s fixed deposit and savings accounts. Dahikar, the proprietor of Maharshi Enterprises and General Supply and Sales, allegedly received Rs. 71,60,000 in his Bank of Baroda account in Balaghat through a forged cheque and subsequently withdrew and siphoned off the entire amount. The case was registered under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant1 or agent), 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security,2 will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine3 a forged document or electronic record), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code4 (IPC).
Arguments Presented:
Advocate Mukesh Dongarge, representing Dahikar, argued that his client was unaware of the fraud and that the Rs. 71,60,000 transferred to his account was for a railway contract provided by a co-accused. He claimed that when the contract was revoked, he returned the money in cash to the co-accused. He also mentioned that his client had filed a complaint against the Bank of Baroda Branch Manager and the co-accused in Balaghat.
Special Public Prosecutors (SPPs) S.V. Kekanis and Manisha J. Parmar, representing the State, strongly opposed the bail application. They argued that Dahikar had actively participated in the fraud by encashing the forged cheque and transferring the money through various means. They highlighted that the entire defrauded amount was yet to be recovered and that Dahikar, being a resident of Madhya Pradesh, posed a flight risk.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Tapkire, after reviewing the application, the State’s reply, and the available records, noted that Dahikar was arrested on February 22, 2024, nearly three years after the crime was registered. The court also acknowledged that Rs. 71,60,000 from the Labour Board was transferred to Dahikar’s account through a forged cheque and that he had withdrawn and transferred the entire amount within a short period.
“The record is clarifying and the same is also admitted that the amount of Railway Board Rs.71,60,000/- get transferred in his bank account by using forged fabricated false cheque. Thereon the entire amount get transferred withdrawn by him within short span,” Judge Tapkire stated in his order.
The court rejected Dahikar’s claim that he had returned the money to the co-accused, citing that the records showed he had transferred the funds through various means, including cheques, UPI, NEFT, and cash withdrawals.
“The record itself shows that he has get withdrawn the said amount by his other own cheques, UPI payment, amount transferred by NEFT, Micro cash transactions and withdrawn by cash. Thereby, in his said submission prima-facie does not incline justified substance force,” Judge Tapkire stated.
The court also dismissed Dahikar’s reliance on his complaint against the bank and co-accused, stating that it appeared to be an attempt to create a defense.
“However, prima-facie it inclined the same is just created by applicant in view of availing shield/defence to him, in case of his arrest and detention in jail. Hence, I am not inclined any considerable cause reason ground to have liberty to him,” Judge Tapkire stated.
Consequently, the court rejected the bail application of Virendra Harikishan Dahikar.
Implications and Significance:
This ruling highlights the court’s strict stance against economic offenses involving large sums of money and the importance of tracing the flow of funds in such cases. The decision underscores that mere claims of innocence or lack of knowledge are not sufficient grounds for bail when there is evidence of direct involvement in transferring defrauded amounts.
The court’s consideration of the accused’s residency outside the jurisdiction and the ongoing investigation reflects a concern about potential flight risk and the need to ensure the accused’s presence during the trial.
The order was dated April 26, 2024, and signed and uploaded on May 2, 2024, at 3:05 p.m.