Mumbai, January 17, 2024: In a significant ruling, the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, has rejected the bail application of Sharad Hanmant Ekawade, one of the accused in a high-profile fraud case involving impersonation of an Income Tax Officer and the theft of Rs. 18 lakhs. The case, registered under C.R. No. 310 of 2023 at Sion Police Station, includes multiple serious charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), namely Sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for cheating), 471 (using forged documents), 452 (house trespass), 170 (impersonating a public servant), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy).
The Incident and Investigation
According to the prosecution, on November 26, 2023, at approximately 11:40 AM, a group of five unidentified individuals arrived at the residence of the informant, claiming to be officials from the Income Tax Department. One of the accused allegedly displayed a fake ID card, following which the group forcefully entered the house, locked the doors, confiscated the mobile phones of all family members, and demanded the keys to a cupboard. Upon obtaining access, they looted Rs. 18 lakhs in cash before escaping in an Innova car.
The FIR was registered on December 4, 2023, nearly eight days after the incident. Subsequently, during the investigation, Ekawade was identified as one of the individuals involved in the crime. His arrest was reportedly based on revelations made by co-accused No. 5, who implicated him in the operation. During interrogation, Ekawade allegedly admitted to his involvement, leading to the recovery of Rs. 55,000 from his possession.
Defense Argument: False Implication and Lack of Evidence
During the bail hearing, Ekawade’s defense counsel, Advocate Trupen Rathod, contended that his client had been falsely implicated and was being framed based on a mere disclosure by a co-accused. Rathod emphasized that:
- The delay in registering the FIR raises doubts about the credibility of the allegations.
- CCTV footage from the scene of the crime does not conclusively establish Ekawade’s presence.
- The primary offenders were accused Nos. 1 and 2, and there was no direct evidence linking Ekawade to the crime.
- The vehicle used for the escape did not belong to him.
- He had no role in forging the fake ID cards used in the crime.
Rathod further argued that since Ekawade had already spent a significant amount of time in custody, there was no justification for his continued incarceration, especially as the police had already recovered Rs. 55,000 from him.
Prosecution’s Counter: Active Involvement and Risk of Tampering Evidence
Opposing the bail plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Abhijeet Gondwal contended that:
- Ekawade had received a share of Rs. 2 lakhs from the looted money, a portion of which had been recovered from him.
- He had actively participated in the execution of the crime, making him a crucial part of the conspiracy.
- There was a possibility of a larger organized racket operating behind this crime, necessitating further investigation.
- The remaining amount of money was yet to be recovered.
- Granting bail at this stage could allow the accused to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
Court’s Observations and Verdict
After hearing both sides, Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar, presiding over Court Room No. 37, held that the material on record strongly suggested Ekawade’s involvement. The judge noted:
- The accused had personally disclosed information leading to the recovery of stolen money, which significantly weakened his plea of false implication.
- The argument about the delayed FIR was irrelevant at this stage.
- The CCTV footage, though inconclusive, would be examined during the trial, and was not a sole factor in determining bail.
- The applicant had not denied his acquaintance with the co-accused, and his defense strategy of shifting blame onto other accused persons indicated that he had knowledge of the crime.
- Since the investigation was still in its early stages, releasing the accused on bail could derail the momentum of the case.
Based on these observations, the court concluded that granting bail to Ekawade was not appropriate at this stage. The bail application was accordingly rejected.
Legal and Public Implications
This case has drawn public attention due to the nature of the crime, where accused individuals allegedly impersonated law enforcement officials to commit fraud. The rejection of bail highlights the judiciary’s stance on ensuring that individuals involved in financial fraud and organized crime do not evade legal consequences.
As the investigation continues, authorities are expected to focus on tracing the remaining stolen money, identifying other potential members of the gang, and strengthening the evidence to secure convictions in court. The case will likely serve as a precedent for similar instances of financial fraud, emphasizing the importance of thorough investigation before considering bail applications for accused individuals.
