Mumbai, India – February 28, 2024 – A Mumbai Sessions Court has rejected the bail application of Sohansingh Narsingh Rajpurohit, a businessman accused of orchestrating a fraud involving over Rs. 1 crore of a charitable trust’s funds. Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Shri S.D. Tawshikar, presiding over Court No. 10, denied bail in Criminal Bail Application No. 370 of 2024, citing Rajpurohit’s active role in the alleged offense and the ongoing investigation.

Rajpurohit, 41, faces charges under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 421 (dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine¹ a forged document or electronic record),² 477 (falsification of accounts), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges stem from Crime No. 256 of 2023, registered at Cuffe Parade Police Station.

The Alleged Fraud and Trust’s Losses:

The case revolves around the Shree Jain Swetamber Terapath Samithi, a registered trust in Airoli, Navi Mumbai. According to the prosecution, on Rajpurohit’s advice, the trust opened an account at Punjab National Bank (PNB), Colaba Branch, in 2018. The trust subsequently invested in two fixed deposits (FDs) amounting to Rs. 15,01,000 and Rs. 75,00,000.

The trust alleges that when they attempted to obtain statements for their FDs, the branch manager, Ravi Kumar, delayed the process. Upon finally receiving the details, the trust discovered that the FD amounts had been diverted into Rajpurohit’s loan account. The original FD receipts remained with the trust, indicating that forged FD receipts were used to secure a loan for Rajpurohit. The FD amounts were then used to settle the loan.

Prosecution’s Case and Rajpurohit’s Alleged Involvement:

The prosecution contends that Rajpurohit, who had advised the trust to open the PNB account, was aware of the trust’s FDs and misused this information to obtain a loan in collusion with bank employees. They allege that Rajpurohit provided his mobile number as the contact for the trust and that he conspired with co-accused Raju Saxena and Amish Shah to execute the fraud.

The prosecution also presented evidence that a subsequent branch manager, Ravi Kumar, had informed Rajpurohit about the overdue loan and even visited him with photographic evidence. Despite this, Rajpurohit allegedly failed to settle the loan, leading to the foreclosure and encashment of the trust’s FDs.

Defense Arguments and Rajpurohit’s Claims:

Rajpurohit’s defense argued that the chargesheet did not indicate he was the beneficiary of the loan amount. They claimed the loan was immediately transferred to Amish Shah and other accounts. They further asserted that Rajpurohit was a scapegoat and had no connection to the offense.

The defense also argued that the bank should have verified Rajpurohit’s details when sanctioning the loan in 2020, as he had existing accounts with the bank. They claimed Rajpurohit was unaware of the loan and that no loan application was ever made by him. They further questioned the discrepancy of the trust’s stamp being present on loan documents if it was a personal loan.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Tawshikar, after reviewing the evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, rejected Rajpurohit’s bail application. The court highlighted several key points:

• Rajpurohit was aware of the trust’s FDs and his mobile number was linked to the trust’s bank account.
• The loan amount was directly transferred into Rajpurohit’s loan account.
• Branch Manager Ravi Kumar had informed Rajpurohit about the overdue loan.
• The loan amount was immediately transferred to absconding accused Amish Shah, indicating a possible conspiracy.
• Call Detail Records indicated communication between Rajpurohit and co-accused.

“Thus, circumstances do reveal active participation of applicant in the entire episode of forgery and cheating. FD amounts of the True was transferred in overdue account of the applicant. Said amount was further immediately transferred into the account of Amish Shah. This further leads to show connivance between the applicant and co-accused,” Judge Tawshikar stated in his order.

The court also noted that co-accused Amish Shah and Pritesh Zaveri were still absconding and that the investigation was ongoing. The court concluded that the prosecution’s case, based on documentary evidence, was strong enough to deny bail.

Implications:

The court’s decision underscores the seriousness with which it views financial fraud involving charitable trusts. The rejection of bail highlights the court’s concern that Rajpurohit’s release could hinder the ongoing investigation and that he played a significant role in the alleged offense. The case also brings to light the potential for misuse of trust funds and the importance of stringent oversight in financial transactions involving charitable organizations. The court also showed that even though the defendant did not directly receive the funds, that they can still be held accountable for their role in the crime.