Mumbai, May 4, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Judge U.M. Padwad rejected the bail application of Pruthvi Niranjankumar Soni, a 21-year-old student, in a case involving the alleged cheating of Tanishq Company. The court cited Soni’s alleged involvement in a scheme with his maternal uncle, an employee of Tanishq, as a reason for denying bail.
Soni was arrested in connection with Crime No. 106/2022, registered at Santacruz Police Station. The case involved allegations that Soni, along with his maternal uncle and other accused, participated in a scheme to defraud Tanishq, a jewelry brand.
According to the prosecution, Soni’s maternal uncle, an employee of Tanishq, purchased gold from the company’s outlets using gold coins as payment. These gold coins, which were also sold by Tanishq and accepted as currency, were later found to be silver plated with gold. The informant, another Tanishq employee, filed a report after this discovery.
Soni, through his advocate J.M. Gawli, sought bail, arguing that his name was not mentioned in the initial report and that he merely accompanied his maternal uncle to the Tanishq shop. He claimed he had no other role in the alleged fraud and that his detention was unnecessary.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Shankar Erande, opposed the bail application.
Judge Padwad, after reviewing the application, reply, and record, noted that Soni had accompanied his maternal uncle on multiple occasions when the latter purchased gold from Tanishq using the fraudulent gold coins. The court raised concerns about whether Soni’s presence was coincidental or part of a larger scheme.
“It is however to be noted that it has been observed during investigation that the maternal uncle of the accused had purchased gold from Tanishq in exchange with the gold coins many times and on all such occasions the present accused was with him. It appears that the maternal uncle of the accused being employee of Tanishq had exploited certain loopholes in the said scheme run by Tanishq to sell ornaments in exchange of gold coins. Whether the present accused had accompanied his maternal uncle on so many occasions to Tanishq only coincidently or was it the part of a ploy is itself a matter for further investigation,” Judge Padwad stated in his order.
The court also highlighted that Soni’s maternal uncle was still absconding, and the total value of the jewelry purchased through the fraudulent scheme was substantial, amounting to Rs. 53,90,147 from various outlets in Mumbai. The court emphasized that further investigation was ongoing, and the embezzled property was yet to be recovered.
“The maternal uncle of the accused is still absconding. The total jewellery purchased by the other accused is worth Rs. 53,90,147/- from various outlets in Mumbai. Further probe into such instances is still going on. The property embezzled is still to be recovered. Release of the present accused is likely to be an impediment in recovery of those ornaments and arrest of the other accused,” Judge Padwad observed.
The court concluded that the offense was serious and that releasing Soni at this stage could hinder the ongoing investigation and the recovery of the embezzled property.
“The offence committed is quite serious. The accused simply because he claims to be a student cannot be shown any unwarranted latitude at this very initial stage. Considering the gravity and scope of the offence the investigating agency also needs to be given sufficient time to make further headway. The accused thus is not entitled for bail,” Judge Padwad ruled.
Consequently, the court rejected Soni’s bail application. The order was signed on May 2, 2022, and uploaded on May 4, 2022, at 11:10 AM, as certified by stenographer V.V. Kulkarni.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s approach in considering the alleged involvement of individuals in complex fraud cases and the potential impact of their release on ongoing investigations. It also highlights the court’s concern for the recovery of embezzled property and the apprehension of absconding accused.