Mumbai, Maharashtra – May 4, 2022 – Chhaya Kakasaheb Kharat, also known as Chhaya Dhanaji Chandanshive, has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in a multi-million rupee property fraud case. Additional Sessions Judge R.J. Katariya (C.R. No. 56) rejected Bail Application No. 968 of 2022, related to C.R. No. 58 of 2022 registered with Worli Police Station.
Kharat, a 41-year-old maid, was arrested and charged under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 406 (criminal breach1 of trust), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Background:
The complainant, Rajesh Tikam Makwana, alleged that he intended to purchase a residential room and was introduced to Kharat, who claimed to be a property agent. Kharat assured him she could secure a room in the Worli area at a low price.
Subsequently, Kharat introduced Makwana to co-accused Bharti Shankar Pawar, Jyotsna Jagannath Shinde, and Geeta Gautam Kamble, claiming they were vendors willing to sell their rooms in a BMC Chawl at Worli, as well as a room belonging to Avinash Pawar.
Makwana alleged that Kharat and the co-accused collectively obtained ₹47,25,000 from him under the pretext of selling these rooms. Agreements were executed in his favor, with Kharat signing as a witness. However, Makwana never received the rooms.
Arguments and Court’s Reasoning:
Kharat’s counsel, Adv. Ajay Jaiswal, argued that she was falsely implicated and had no involvement in the alleged offense. He claimed she was merely a witness to the transaction and that she was a widow with a dependent daughter and mother. He also highlighted that she had been in custody for over a month and was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
The prosecution, represented by APP Ashwini Rayakar, opposed the bail application, stating that Kharat and the co-accused had obtained money under false pretenses and executed fraudulent agreements. They also noted that the co-accused were still absconding and that the investigation was ongoing.
The court, after reviewing the FIR, noted that there were specific allegations against Kharat and that her role was significant. “Perusal of FIR, there are specific allegations against the applicant being involved in the commission of said offence. The role of the applicant is major. She along with other co-accused alleged to obtained amount from the informant under pretext to sale rooms of the co-accused to the informant,” Judge Katariya stated.
The court also emphasized the ongoing investigation and the gravity of the offense. “The investigation is in progress. In view of gravity of offence and specific major role of the applicant, she is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage,” Judge Katariya concluded.
Decision:
Judge Katariya rejected Kharat’s bail application, citing her significant role in the alleged fraud and the ongoing investigation.
The certified copy of the judgment was issued on May 4, 2022. This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the accused’s specific role in the alleged offense and the stage of the investigation when denying bail in a financial fraud case.