Mumbai, July 12, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Menjoge rejected the bail application of Mukesh Dhondiram Lade, accused in a cheating and breach of trust case registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station. The court cited strong evidence of fraud and the misuse of funds as reasons for denying bail.

Lade, an estate agent, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 517/2021, registered under Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant, Bhagwan Dere, alleged that in 2017-18, he sought to purchase a room and was introduced to Lade, who claimed that Vijay Yadav wished to sell his property. An agreement was reached for Rs. 14 lakhs for the room and Rs. 3 lakhs as commission to Lade and his wife, Swati. Dere paid a total of Rs. 17 lakhs to Lade, but neither received the room nor a refund. Subsequently, Lade executed documents promising to refund the amount in installments and issued four cheques, all of which were dishonored due to insufficient funds.

Lade, through his advocate Mr. Shankar Parab, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), claiming false implication and arguing that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed. He asserted that further detention served no purpose.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mr. Ramesh Siroya, strongly opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offense and Lade’s alleged history of similar offenses. The prosecution further alleged that the investigation revealed Lade had spent the entire Rs. 17 lakhs in beer bars and gambling, raising concerns about his potential to abscond or influence witnesses if released.

Judge Menjoge, after hearing both sides and reviewing the case diary, referenced several Supreme Court judgments regarding bail considerations. The court considered factors such as the prima facie evidence, the nature and gravity of the charge, the severity of punishment, the risk of absconding, the character and means of the accused, the likelihood of repeated offenses, and the potential for witness tampering.

“In the light of law laid down in above cases, I perused the case diary. The agreement executed by the applicant accused admitting the receipt of Rs.17 lacs from the complainant, and his failure to provide the room to the complainant is on record. He also admitted to refund the said amount to the complainant and issued the 4 cheques in favour of complainant which are dishonoured. This clearly shows that there was intention of cheating the complainant since beginning. I.O. also stated that it is revealed during the investigation that present accused spent entire amount of Rs.17 lacs in the Beer bar and gambling,” Judge Menjoge stated in his order.

The court distinguished this case from Yaseem Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, where bail was granted due to a lack of recovery and a property title dispute. In Lade’s case, the court noted that the entire amount was allegedly misused, negating the relevance of recovery.

“However, in the present case the question of recovery does not arise as the entire amount is spent by the applicant/accused in the Beer bar and gambling. Therefore, the fact of that case and the present case in my hand defers. And if he is released on bail there is a possibility of commission of similar kind of offence in the future,” Judge Menjoge observed.

Considering the evidence of fraud and the misuse of funds, the court concluded that Lade was not entitled to bail.

“Considering all these facts, accused is not entitled for the bail,” Judge Menjoge ruled.

The bail application was rejected and disposed of accordingly. The order was dictated, transcribed, and signed on July 12, 2022, and uploaded on the same day, as certified by stenographer Mrs. S.S. Sawant.

This ruling underscores the court’s stringent approach in cases involving financial fraud and highlights the importance of considering the accused’s conduct and the potential for repeated offenses when deciding bail applications.