Mumbai, May 4, 2024 – Niraj Mansukhlal Ved’s bail application has been rejected by the Sessions Court in Mumbai. Ved was arrested in connection with Crime No. 344/2022, registered at Bhandup Police Station, for offenses under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document¹ or electronic record), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code² (IPC).

The Allegations

According to the prosecution, Ved and his co-accused were involved in cheating and forgery related to a construction project. The complainant alleges that Ved accepted a substantial amount of money (Rs. 1,05,24,687) from her and other victims, promising them shop premises. However, he allegedly alienated and transferred the same premises to other people by preparing forged documents.

Ved’s Defense and Arguments

Advocate Vaibhav Jagtap, representing Ved, argued that the dispute was primarily a civil matter related to a construction project. He stated that Ved had executed registered documents in favor of the complainant but that the transactions could not be completed due to her negligence and reluctance. He denied any intention to cheat or deceive her. He also highlighted that a civil matter related to the construction project was already sub judice. He further argued that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and the allegations were primarily related to documentary evidence already collected. Ved also pointed out that he had obtained liberty in other similar cases related to the same project.

Prosecution’s Objections

Special Public Prosecutors (S.P.P.) S.V. Kekanis and Manisha J. Parmar, along with Advocate Tushar Mommaiyah for the intervener, strongly opposed the bail application. They argued that Ved’s pre-arrest bail applications had been rejected by all courts, including the Supreme Court. They alleged that despite executing a registered agreement for a shop in favor of the complainant, Ved had alienated and transferred the same shop to another person. They emphasized that Ved had accepted a huge sum of money from the complainant and victims but had sold the premises to others using forged documents. They claimed he was a habitual offender involved in serious economic crimes and cited substantial evidence to support their claims.

Court’s Observations and Decision

Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire considered the submissions and the documents on record. The court noted that Ved’s pre-arrest bail applications had been rejected by all courts, including the Supreme Court, and that he had been arrested after those rejections. The court also observed that the charge sheet had been filed and the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 28 of 2024.

The court found that Ved had allotted shop no. 5 to the complainant and executed a registered agreement in her favor, accepting a large sum of money. However, he had subsequently alienated the same shop to another purchaser, Balendra Singh, and his business partner, showing it as shop nos. 4 and 4(a). The court also noted that Ved had allegedly executed further documents in favor of the complainant, which were not complied with, even though he had no premises to give her.

“Considering the modus, conduct, behave of applicant to grab the hard earned amount of premises purchaser as well as tendency to execute unlawful forged dubious document of one and same premises in favour of multiple persons. The same is certainly seriously considerable, cognizable. Moreover, in that regard sufficient considerable evidence is availed,” Judge Tapkire stated in the order.

The court also highlighted that Ved had nine pending criminal cases against him related to the same construction project and that a substantial amount of Rs. 1,05,24,687 was involved in the current case.

The court concluded that the submissions and grounds raised by Ved did not justify granting him bail, considering his conduct and the evidence available.

Order

Criminal Bail Application No. 309 of 2024 was rejected.

Key Points

• Repeated Offences: Ved had nine pending criminal cases related to the same construction project.
• Large Sum Involved: A substantial amount of Rs. 1,05,24,687 was involved in the current case.
• Prior Rejection of Bail: Ved’s pre-arrest bail applications had been rejected by all courts, including the Supreme Court.
• Forgery and Cheating: The court found prima facie evidence of forgery and cheating.
• Multiple Transfers: Ved had allegedly transferred the same premises to multiple people.
• Habitual Offender: The prosecution argued that Ved was a habitual offender involved in serious economic crimes.
• Registered Agreement: The Court considered that the registered agreement was broken by the accused.