Mumbai, India – February 7, 2024 – Two senior citizens, Dr. Vasant Jivram Majethia, 62, and Vikram Lakhani, 72, have been granted bail by a Mumbai Sessions Court in a case involving the alleged misappropriation of trust funds. Additional Sessions Judge V.M. Sundale, presiding over Court Room No. 27, granted bail in Criminal Bail Application No. 245 of 2024, citing the lack of recovery during police custody and the applicants’ willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Majethia and Lakhani were arrested in connection with Crime No. 739/2023 registered at Mulund Police Station, facing charges under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).¹ They are accused of cheating and misappropriating funds from the Shri Karachi Kachhi Lohana Narayan Sarvovariya and Lakhpati Mahajan Trust.

The Allegations and Arrest:

The prosecution alleges that Majethia, Lakhani, and a co-accused forcibly took possession of the trust, opened three bank accounts, and rented trust premises at a significantly low price. The co-accused, Rahul Majethia, is yet to be arrested.

The applicants were arrested on January 16, 2024, and remanded to police custody until January 21, 2024, before being sent to judicial custody.

Defense Arguments:

The defense argued that the applicants were senior citizens and had been in jail since their arrest. They emphasized that the applicants’ presence was not required for any recovery or discovery, as nothing had been recovered from them during police custody. They also asserted that the applicants were local residents and willing to cooperate with the investigation and that they had no prior criminal record.

Prosecution Objections:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ratnavali Patil and the investigating officer, strongly opposed the bail application. They argued that the applicants had previously filed a pre-arrest bail application that was rejected and that releasing them could lead to witness intimidation, hampering the investigation, and the applicants fleeing justice.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Sundale, after reviewing the case records and hearing arguments from both sides, granted bail to Majethia and Lakhani. The court noted that the applicants were senior citizens and that nothing had been recovered from them during police custody.

“The presence of the applicants is not necessary for any recovery or discovery. The applicants are local residents and ready to co-operate the investigation. Nothing has been placed on record about past criminal antecedents of the applicants. There are no extra ordinary circumstances to keep the applicants behind bar and complete remaining part of investigation,” Judge Sundale stated in his order.

The court also noted that the applicants were willing to cooperate with the investigation and that the prosecution’s apprehensions could be addressed by imposing certain conditions.

Bail Conditions:

Majethia and Lakhani were granted bail on the following conditions:

• They must execute a personal recognizance (PR) bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• They and their sureties must provide their mobile numbers, email addresses, and proof of residence.
• They must not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or pressurize any person acquainted with the case.
• They must not leave India without prior permission from the court.
• They must attend Mulund Police Station once a week (every Monday) until the charge sheet is filed.
• They were granted provisional cash bail and must furnish sureties within four weeks.
• Breach of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.
• Bail before learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

Implications:

This case highlights the court’s consideration of factors such as the accused’s age, cooperation with the investigation, and the lack of recovery during police custody when deciding on bail applications. It also underscores the court’s willingness to impose conditions to address the prosecution’s concerns. The courts decision also shows that even in cases of financial impropriety, that if there is no flight risk, and cooperation is expected, bail can be granted.