Mumbai, March 5, 2024 – Sunil Tanaji Ghatvisave, a businessman, has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in a housing scam case. Additional Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar (Court Room No. 58) issued the order on March 4, 2024.
Ghatvisave was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 80 of 2023, registered at the Dadar Police Station, for offenses under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent),1 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) read2 with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background and Allegations:
The prosecution alleged that Ghatvisave promised the complainant and witnesses houses in a MHADA mill workers colony at discounted prices. Between 2017 and 2019, he allegedly collected Rs. 2,30,60,000 from them and provided forged documents purporting to show that they had been allotted houses in a MHADA lottery. He then allegedly misappropriated the funds for personal use.
Arguments Presented:
Advocate Khithani represented Ghatvisave, while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Sulbha Joshi represented the State.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Pawar noted that this was Ghatvisave’s second bail application after the charge sheet was filed. He observed that Ghatvisave’s previous bail application had been rejected on December 11, 2023, where the court had specifically stated that Ghatvisave was the prime accused and his role could not be compared with other co-accused who were granted bail. The court also noted that the investigation was still ongoing at that time.
The court emphasized that there was no substantial change in circumstances between the previous rejection and this application, which was filed only two months later.
The court also considered that Ghatvisave had no permanent address in Mumbai, had been absconding prior to his arrest, and had criminal antecedents. The court noted the strong prima facie case against him, including the recovery of forged documents from his residence, and the fact that he had allegedly used the misappropriated funds for personal expenses.
The court concluded that there was a possibility of Ghatvisave repeating similar offenses and fleeing from justice, given the magnitude of the fraud.
Decision:
The court rejected Ghatvisave’s bail application, finding no substantive change in circumstances and considering the role played by him.
Order Details:
The order was dictated and transcribed on March 4, 2024, and checked and signed on March 5, 2024. The certified copy was uploaded on March 5, 2024, at 3:07 p.m.
This decision reflects the court’s consideration of the lack of changed circumstances, Ghatvisave’s role in the alleged fraud, his criminal antecedents, and the potential risks of him absconding or committing further offenses.