Mumbai, March 16, 2024 – Vijay Yesudas Nadar has been denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in a case involving cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar (Court Room No. 37) issued the order on March 15, 2024.
Nadar was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 421/2023, registered at the Matunga Police Station, for offenses under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record),1 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and2 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background and Allegations:
The prosecution alleged that Nadar, along with co-accused Ali Raza Shaikh, Jay @ Raju Manglani, Valmik Goler, and Vikrant D. Sonawane, conspired to defraud the complainant. They promised to exonerate the complainant from a prior offense, transfer a liquor license, and provide benefits from the APMC Market in New Bombay. Under this pretense, they allegedly received Rs. 1,95,68,000 from the complainant. When the complainant demanded the money back, he was allegedly threatened at gunpoint.
Arguments Presented:
Advocate Aarushi Yadav, representing Nadar, argued that he was falsely implicated. She claimed his role was limited to introducing the parties and that he received only Rs. 3,30,000, which he was willing to deposit with the court. She also stated he proposed to be an approver in the case. She argued that Nadar was not involved in forging documents, the FIR and charge sheet did not disclose an offense, and the case was document-based. As the charge sheet was filed, she argued nothing needed to be recovered from him.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Abhijeet Gondwal opposed the bail, arguing that Nadar played a crucial role in forging a PAN card and impersonating Vikrant Sonawane (the liquor license holder) to gain the complainant’s trust. He stated that the money received by Nadar was yet to be recovered and that his presence was required for confrontation to uncover the entire racket. He also expressed concerns about Nadar absconding, tampering with evidence, and threatening witnesses.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Joglekar noted that Nadar admitted to receiving Rs. 3,30,000 and to introducing the co-accused to the complainant. He also noted Nadar’s proposal to become an approver. The court stated that these admissions disentitled Nadar from bail.
The court considered the case laws cited by Nadar’s advocate but found them inapplicable. The court distinguished the facts of those cases, particularly noting that Nadar had not argued the illegality of his actions.
The court emphasized that Nadar had admitted his role in the crime. Therefore, the court found that there was a possibility that Nadar might tamper with prosecution evidence.
Decision:
The court rejected Nadar’s bail application, concluding that it was not a fit case for granting bail.
Order Details:
The order was dictated and transcribed on March 15, 2024, and signed on March 16, 2024. The certified copy was uploaded on March 16, 2024, at 3:07 p.m.
This decision reflects the court’s consideration of Nadar’s admissions, the seriousness of the allegations, and the potential risks to the investigation and witnesses.