Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 19, 2022 – A Mumbai Sessions Court has rejected the bail application of Chandramohan Bholanath Mehrotra, accused in a multi-million rupee cheating case. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge U.M. Padwad, denied bail, citing the accused’s involvement and the strong possibility of a shared common intention with the primary accused to defraud the complainant.

Chandramohan Mehrotra was arrested in connection with Crime No. 93/2022, registered at Bandra Police Station, for allegedly cheating a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) complainant of Rs. 3,85,75,214 by inducing her to invest in various schemes and companies.

Details of the Allegations:

According to the prosecution, the complainant was induced to invest a substantial sum of money through fraudulent representations. The scheme, purportedly associated with an “Investment Finance Company,” was revealed to be a proprietary concern. The primary accused, Ravi, allegedly orchestrated the initial contact and representations to the complainant.

Arguments Presented During the Bail Hearing:

Mehrotra’s defense, led by advocate Mr. Milan A. Desai, argued that his client was not the primary culprit and that Ravi was solely responsible for contacting and making representations to the complainant. They claimed that Mehrotra had only interacted with the complainant once through a video call at Ravi’s behest and that he neither made any representations nor received any money. They also asserted that nothing was to be recovered from Mehrotra and that the investigation concerning him was nearly complete.

Prosecution’s Counterarguments and Court’s Reasoning:

The prosecution countered these arguments by highlighting Mehrotra’s involvement in the fraudulent scheme. They presented evidence indicating that Mehrotra was introduced to the complainant as a Director of the purported “Investment Finance Company.” Additionally, forged investment certificates and letterheads of ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund were recovered from Ravi’s residence, along with offer/allotment letters purportedly issued to the complainant.

The court noted that Mehrotra was in contact with the complainant through phone and emails throughout the period from August 13, 2021, to January 10, 2022. The court emphasized that the amount embezzled was substantial and that it was not possible to segregate Mehrotra’s role from Ravi’s at that stage.

“It is not possible to segregate role of this accused from that of accused Ravi at this stage. Rather, there appears every substance in the prosecution version that both the accused shared common intention to dupe the informant,” Judge Padwad stated in the order.

The court concluded that releasing Mehrotra at that stage would impede further investigation and that there was strong evidence to suggest a shared common intention between him and Ravi to defraud the complainant.

“In such circumstances, release of the accused at this stage is bound to be an impediment in further investigation. The present accused thus is not entitled for bail as of now,” Judge Padwad stated.

Decision:

The court rejected Mehrotra’s bail application, emphasizing the ongoing investigation, the substantial amount of money involved, and the strong likelihood of a shared common intention to defraud the complainant.