Mumbai, March 5, 2024 – Asha Amit Vanani, accused in a ₹41 crore diamond fraud case, has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. Additional Sessions Judge S. B. Joshi rejected her bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 445 of 2024), citing procedural irregularities and the ongoing nature of the investigation.

Vanani was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 60 of 2023, registered with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Mumbai, based on F.I.R. No. 341 of 2023 at D.B. Marg Police Station. She faces charges under sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy)¹ of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).²

Prosecution’s Case:

The case revolves around allegations that directors of Niru Impex, including Govardhan Govindbhai Vanani, Amruta Govardhan Vanani, and Amit Govardhan Vanani, along with their relatives, defrauded M/s. Samir Gems N.V. and M/s. S. Diamonds Ltd. of ₹41,73,04,051. The complainant, Sanjay Jayantilal Bhansali, alleged that between September 2006 and June 2007, the accused purchased diamonds but failed to pay within the stipulated 120 days. They allegedly manipulated documents, including a false Power of Attorney, and engaged in fraudulent property transactions to conceal their financial gains.

Defense Arguments:

Asha Amit Vanani, represented by Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda and Advocate Gopalkrishna Nayak, argued that she was falsely implicated. She claimed to have no involvement in the alleged transactions with the complainant and had cooperated with the investigation. She presented documents, including 109 registered sale deeds and income tax returns, to demonstrate her legitimate property dealings. Vanani emphasized that the F.I.R. did not specify her role, and her arrest was based solely on a statement from Anil Vanani. She also highlighted that her co-accused, Amruta Vanani, had been granted anticipatory bail, while the other two had interim protection from the Bombay High Court. Vanani asserted that the dispute was civil in nature, the F.I.R. was filed after an 11-year delay, and there was no need for her custodial interrogation.

Prosecution and Intervenor’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Seema Deshpande, and the intervenor, Sanjay Jayantilal Bhansali, objected to Vanani’s bail. They argued that she had not disclosed all property documents and could potentially hide evidence. They claimed she was involved in transferring and re-transferring properties to conceal the fraud. They also alleged that crucial documents were yet to be recovered, and Vanani, being from another state, posed a flight risk. They emphasized the need for further investigation into her involvement and that of her relatives.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Joshi rejected Vanani’s bail application primarily on procedural grounds. He noted that the offenses were exclusively triable by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, and Vanani had directly approached the Sessions Court without first filing a bail application in the trial court. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining judicial discipline and adhering to established procedures.

The court also considered the ongoing nature of the investigation and the seriousness of the allegations. It concluded that Vanani had circumvented judicial procedure and therefore, her application was not sustainable before the sessions court.

Key Points from the Court’s Reasoning:

• Procedural Irregularity: The court emphasized that the applicant had not approached the trial court first, which is required for magistrate triable offences.
• Ongoing Investigation: The court recognized the need for a thorough investigation, especially given the nature of the alleged fraud.
• Judicial Discipline: The court stressed the importance of maintaining judicial discipline by following established procedures.

Conclusion:

The court rejected Vanani’s bail application, emphasizing the need to follow proper legal procedures and allow for a thorough investigation. The decision focused on the procedural lapse rather than the merits of the case itself.