Mumbai, August 1, 2022 – Kalpesh Dilip Kapadia, a 48-year-old manager, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court in Mumbai in connection with an alleged multi-crore fraud case. Kapadia was arrested in connection with Crime No. 119/2018, registered at the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), for offenses under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), 420 (cheating), and¹ 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Allegations

According to the prosecution, Kapadia and his associates, including prime accused Premchand Mittal, conspired to cheat complainant Yash Himanshu Shah and witness Dilip Maheshwari. They allegedly induced them with false promises of returns exceeding the market value of goods. After gaining their trust by initially paying for goods taken on credit, they allegedly took goods worth Rs. 11,90,07,873 and failed to pay the amount.

Kapadia’s Defense and Arguments

Shri. Sanjiv Yadav, representing Kapadia, argued that his client was merely a manager working for prime accused Premchand Mittal and was not the mastermind behind the alleged fraud. He stated that no primary role was attributed to Kapadia in the FIR or investigation papers and that there was no wrongful gain to him or wrongful loss to the complainant and witnesses at his hands.

Kapadia also claimed that all documents related to the transactions were recovered from Mittal and that the dispute was primarily of a civil nature, as evidenced by a commercial summary suit filed by the complainant against Mittal in the Bombay High Court.

Prosecution’s Objections

Smt. Seema Deshpande, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), and the Investigating Officer (IO) opposed the bail application. They argued that the FIR clearly showed Kapadia’s involvement, that the investigation was in its preliminary stage, and that there was a risk of Kapadia threatening witnesses and tampering with evidence if released. They also alleged that Kapadia and his associates were habitual offenders and that a receipt for Rs. 2,71,00,000, produced in an anticipatory bail application, was forged.

Court’s Observations and Decision

Additional Sessions Judge Anand Pandurang Kanade noted that prime accused Premchand Mittal had been granted anticipatory bail and that the complainant had filed a commercial summary suit against him. The court also observed that the dispute appeared to be of a civil nature and that the IO had seized all relevant documents.

“After going through the papers on record, it reveals that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. It also reveals from police papers that I.O. seized the books of accounts, bills, ledger and lorry receipts regarding alleged transactions,” Judge Kanade stated in the order.

Considering Kapadia’s role, the court found that his further custody was not necessary.

Bail Conditions

Kapadia was granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and one or two solvent sureties of the same amount. The court imposed the following conditions:

• A provisional cash security of Rs. 50,000 was allowed for one month in lieu of the surety bond.
• Kapadia must attend the EOW office every Thursday between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM until the charge sheet is filed.
• He must submit a list of at least three blood relatives with their addresses and contact details.
• He and his surety must inform the police and the court of any change in their residential addresses.
• He must submit copies of at least two identity and address proofs.
• The IO must conduct a physical verification of Kapadia’s residential address.
• Kapadia must not threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence.
• He must not leave the territorial limits of Mumbai without prior permission.
• He must not commit similar offenses while on bail.
• The bail process will be completed before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

The court’s decision reflects a consideration of the nature of the dispute, the progress of the investigation, and the need to balance the accused’s rights with the interests of justice. The conditions imposed aim to ensure Kapadia’s cooperation with the ongoing investigation and prevent any interference with the judicial process.