Mumbai, January 19, 2024 – In a significant development, the Mumbai Sessions Court has denied bail to businessman Raju Devidas Manglani, accused in a ₹1.95 crore fraud case. The bail plea, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation.
Case Background
According to the Matunga Police Station, a case was registered under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120-B, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Manglani and his co-accused, including Ali Raza Shaikh, Valmik Goler, Vijay Nadar, and Vikrant D. Sonawane. The prosecution alleged that between September 2021 and February 2022, the accused conspired to deceive the complainant by falsely promising exoneration from a previous case, assistance in liquor license transfers, and financial benefits from the APMC Market in Navi Mumbai.
To establish trust, Manglani and his associates allegedly misused the name of a cabinet minister and even held meetings at the state assembly premises to convince the complainant. Under these assurances, they fraudulently obtained ₹1,95,68,000 from the complainant. When the victim demanded repayment, he was allegedly threatened at gunpoint.
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
During the hearing, Manglani’s defense counsel, Advocate Rahul Pandit, argued that the case was a commercial dispute rather than a criminal offense. The defense emphasized that:
- No money was directly entrusted to Manglani.
- The co-accused was the actual beneficiary of the amount.
- The funds received in Manglani’s wife’s account were returned to the co-accused, indicating a loan transaction rather than fraud.
However, the prosecution, led by APP Abhijeet Gondwal, strongly opposed the bail plea, highlighting that:
- Manglani played a key role in introducing the complainant to the scam.
- The accused misused a minister’s name to gain credibility.
- The money trail showed suspicious transactions, requiring further investigation.
- The potential for evidence tampering and witness intimidation was high.
The prosecution also pointed out that Manglani’s anticipatory bail plea had been rejected earlier, indicating the gravity of the case.
Court’s Observations and Verdict
After reviewing the case files, financial transactions, and the statements of witnesses, Judge Dr. Joglekar noted several red flags in the accused’s claims. He observed that Manglani initially denied knowing the co-accused, yet later admitted to a financial transaction with them.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the judge ruled that mere filing of a charge sheet does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, especially in cases involving financial fraud and misuse of public trust. The court further stated that granting bail at this stage could derail the ongoing investigation and set a dangerous precedent.
In conclusion, the bail application was rejected, and Manglani remains in judicial custody.
Would you like any refinements or additional details in the article?