Mumbai, March 11, 2024 – The Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, has denied bail to Sharad Hanumant Ekawade, accused in a cheating and impersonation case. Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar, presiding over Court Room No. 37, rejected Ekawade’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 569 of 2024), citing his disclosure statement and the subsequent recovery of a portion of the stolen money.

Ekawade was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 310 of 2023, registered at Sion Police Station, for offenses under sections 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), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 170 (personating a public servant), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, on November 26, 2023, five unknown persons, impersonating Income Tax officers, entered the complainant’s house, confined the family members, and stole ₹18 lakhs. Ekawade was later implicated in the case.

Defense Arguments:

Ekawade, through his advocate Pooja S. Jadhav, argued that he was falsely implicated and not named in the FIR. He claimed that he was implicated based on the revelations of a co-accused, that no Test Identification Parade was conducted, that he was not identified in CCTV footage, and that the prosecution had not obtained CDR or tower location data. He also denied aiding in forging ID cards.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Abhijeet Gondwal, opposed the bail application. They argued that Ekawade had received a share of ₹2 lakhs from the stolen money and that, based on his disclosure statement, ₹55,000 was recovered. They highlighted the pending recovery of the remaining amount and expressed concerns about Ekawade absconding, tampering with evidence, and threatening witnesses.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Joglekar, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:

• Disclosure Statement and Recovery: The court noted that Ekawade had made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of ₹55,000 out of ₹1,80,000.
• Implication of Co-accused: The court acknowledged that Ekawade was implicated based on the revelations of a co-accused, but noted that he had not denied his acquaintance with the co-accused.
• Knowledge of the Crime: The court observed that Ekawade had knowledge of the details of the crime and the active participation of the co-accused.
• Receipt of Sum: The court emphasized that Ekawade had not denied receiving a portion of the stolen money.
• Pending Recovery: The court highlighted the pending recovery of the remaining amount and expressed concerns about Ekawade tampering with evidence.

Judge Joglekar concluded that, considering Ekawade’s disclosure statement, the subsequent recovery, and the pending recovery, there was a possibility of him tampering with evidence. Therefore, he did not find it a fit case for granting bail.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Disclosure Statements and Recovery: The court gave significant weight to the accused’s disclosure statement and the subsequent recovery of stolen money.
• Implication by Co-accused: The court acknowledged the implication of the accused by a co-accused but considered the accused’s knowledge and involvement.
• Pending Recovery: The court considered the pending recovery of the remaining stolen money as a factor in denying bail.
• Risk of Tampering: The court expressed concerns about the accused tampering with evidence.

This ruling underscores the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in cases involving theft and impersonation, particularly when there is evidence of the accused’s involvement and concerns about the recovery of stolen property and potential tampering with evidence.