Mumbai, January 30, 2024: In a significant ruling, the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, has rejected the second successive bail application for Anwar Ali Machiwala, a businessman from Virar, who is facing serious fraud charges in connection with a 2016 case. Machiwala, accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to criminal breach of trust, forgery, and conspiracy, has remained entangled in legal battles due to his alleged non-compliance with previous bail conditions and prolonged abscondence.
Case Background
The case dates back to May 27, 2016, when Machiwala was arrested following a complaint lodged with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Mumbai Police. He was implicated in criminal case number 47 of 2016 and charged under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. These sections cover a wide range of offenses, including fraud, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
In 2017, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) of Mumbai granted Machiwala conditional bail, with a directive to deposit a substantial sum of INR 1.67 crore (approximately USD 200,000). Additionally, he was required to furnish a personal surety of INR 2 lakh. Despite these conditions, Machiwala allegedly failed to comply with the terms of his bail and absconded.
A History of Abscondence and Non-Compliance
Following his bail in August 2017, Machiwala reportedly deposited only a fraction of the required amount, paying between INR 15 to 20 lakh before ceasing further payments. Subsequently, he absconded for a prolonged period of five years, resulting in the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) and the declaration of Machiwala as a “proclaimed offender.” His failure to adhere to the bail conditions and his long absence led to significant delays in the case proceedings, according to the court records.
Machiwala was finally apprehended in March 2023 from Bhubaneswar, Odisha, after years of evasion. Upon his re-arrest, he filed a fresh bail application with the ACMM Court, which was denied due to his prolonged absence and repeated non-compliance with court directives. In September 2023, Machiwala filed his first bail application with the City Civil & Sessions Court, which was also rejected.
Arguments in the Latest Bail Application
Machiwala’s counsel, Mr. Abhayjeet Khairwar, appearing on behalf of Adv. Dilip Shukla, argued that his client had faced financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which hindered his ability to pay the hefty bail amount. The counsel asserted that Machiwala was willing to pay the full deposit within six months if granted bail, adding that he had absconded due to fear for his life.
The defense cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Babba vs. State of Maharashtra (2005), Vivek Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2000), and Sanjay Chandra vs. C.B.I., which emphasize the principle that bail should be the norm and custody the exception, particularly when trial delays are evident. Machiwala’s counsel argued that since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed, keeping the accused in custody served no purpose.
Prosecution’s Opposition
The prosecution, led by SPP Seema Deshpande, along with representatives for the complainant, strongly opposed the bail application. The prosecution noted that Machiwala had consistently disregarded court orders, including the condition to deposit INR 1.67 crore. Additionally, they argued that his prolonged absence from 2017 to 2023 had significantly hampered the trial process, and there was a high likelihood of him absconding again if released.
Deshpande also highlighted that the accused provided a false residential address, further complicating attempts to locate him. Citing these grounds, the prosecution maintained that granting bail would compromise the integrity of the judicial process and delay justice for the complainants.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Judge S.B. Joshi, presiding over Court Room No. 61, acknowledged the defense’s arguments but noted that Machiwala’s actions demonstrated a consistent pattern of non-compliance. The court observed that the accused had neither sought any modification of the original bail conditions from the trial court nor provided any legitimate explanation for his five-year absence. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the delay in framing charges was directly attributable to Machiwala’s absence and evasive conduct.
In the detailed order, Judge Joshi emphasized that an individual proclaimed as an offender for absconding cannot leverage judicial delays in framing charges as grounds for bail. The court added that Machiwala had not filed any applications before the trial court for modification of bail conditions, indicating his disregard for judicial process. Given these factors, the court concluded that releasing him on bail was unwarranted.
Implications and Future Proceedings
With this decision, the court underscored its commitment to upholding the rule of law in cases involving high-profile financial fraud. Machiwala, as per the order, remains free to approach the trial court to request modifications to his bail conditions. The City Civil & Sessions Court has directed the trial court to expedite proceedings, ensuring that the case is handled with priority due to its long pendency.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s stance on accountability, emphasizing that accused individuals must comply with court orders to avoid prolonged custody. As the case progresses, the accused’s future will hinge on his compliance with the court’s directives and any potential changes to the trial proceedings.
