Mumbai, February 9, 2022 – Paghadal Bharatbhai Vashrambhai’s bail application has been rejected by the Sessions Court in Mumbai. Paghadal, also known as Bharat Vashram Paghadal, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 339/2021, registered at BKC Police Station, for offenses under Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations

According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Dinesh Amthalal Shah, a diamond businessman, Paghadal, through an intermediary, Jaysukhbhai Desai, obtained diamonds worth Rs. 15 lakh (283.37 carats) on March 2, 2021. Paghadal signed a “Jangad” (receipt) for the diamonds, promising payment. However, he failed to pay and became unresponsive, leading Shah to file a complaint.

Paghadal’s Defense and Arguments

Mr. Sunny Aaron Waskar, representing Paghadal, argued that his client was falsely implicated. He contended that his earlier bail application was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate and that he had been transferred to this case after being arrested in another similar offense. He requested bail, stating he had undergone police custody remand.

Prosecution’s Objections

Mrs. Rashmi Tendulkar, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), opposed the bail application, reiterating the allegations in the FIR. She argued that a thorough investigation was necessary and that Paghadal would abscond and frustrate the investigation if released on bail.

Court’s Observations and Decision

Additional Sessions Judge M.G. Deshpande considered the submissions and the documents on record. The court noted that Paghadal was also known as Bharat Vashram Paghadal and had been arrested in connection with another similar offense (Crime No. 1194/2021). He was then transferred to the current case.

The court highlighted that the Metropolitan Magistrate, while rejecting Paghadal’s earlier bail application, had observed that Paghadal obtained the diamonds with the promise of payment but failed to explain what he did with them.

“In my opinion, prima-facie an element of cheating is reflected from the conduct of the accused. Cheated articles are valuable diamonds and the recovery thereof is a material part of the investigation. If the accused is released on bail, the same will frustrate the very purpose and object of the investigation,” Judge Deshpande stated in the order.

The court also noted that Paghadal had made a false statement during interrogation, claiming to have sold the diamonds to Anil Sanghvi, which was later found to be untrue.

“Conduct of the accused cannot be ignored. Initially he avoided to approach the informant on the pretext of Covid-19, but subsequently got arrested in another crime; from which his custody was obtained by Investigating Officer. In short, I hold that this is a fit case where thorough investigation is necessary. Investigation is going on. Unless the same is completed, releasing the accused on bail is not justified,” Judge Deshpande stated.

The court concluded that Paghadal had not made out a strong prima facie case for bail and that the ongoing investigation warranted his continued detention.

Order

Bail Application No. 225/2022 was rejected.

Key Points

• Diamond Cheating: The case involved allegations of cheating related to diamonds worth Rs. 15 lakh.
• False Statement: Paghadal made a false statement during interrogation.
• Prior Arrest: Paghadal was arrested in another similar offense.
• Ongoing Investigation: The court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation.
• False Pretext: The accused initially avoided the complainant by giving a false pretext.
• Valuable Articles: The court noted that the cheated articles were valuable diamonds.
• Recovery of Goods: The court stated that the recovery of the diamonds was important to the investigation.