Mumbai, July 26, 2022 (Greater Bombay Sessions Court): The Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. A. A. Joglekar, presiding over Court Room No. 37 at the Sessions Court in Greater Bombay, has rejected the bail application of Sumit Mukund Nagarale @ Sumit Kamal Punjabi, an accused in a case involving cheating through a fictitious precious metal pot scheme. The order, dated July 19, 2022, dismisses Bail Application No. 826 of 2022, arising from C.R. No. 01 of 2022 registered with DCB CID Unit – VII, Mumbai, and also connected to C.R. No. 09 of 2022 at Bhandup Police Station.

Nagarale is accused of offenses punishable under Sections 420 (cheating), 419 (cheating by personation), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), and¹ 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).²

The prosecution’s case stems from a complaint lodged by Rajni Rana on January 7, 2022. The complainant was informed by one Ali Hashmi about a person named Bhaskar Rao who purportedly possessed a precious metal pot. Rana was told that Bhaskar Rao, with the help of his friends, had sold this pot to a Canadian company, Cameco Corporation, for € 15 billion. The complainant was further informed that € 6.7 billion (approximately ₹ 55,000 crore) had already been transferred to Bhaskar Rao’s account but was frozen by the RBI’s foreign exchange department due to an alleged tax liability of ₹ 27 crores.

Rana was then enticed to invest in this venture with the promise of a 40% share in the substantial amount supposedly to be received by Bhaskar Rao. An advance of ₹ 30,000 was accepted from the complainant at a hotel in Bhandup. Following this, the DCB CID Unit – VII registered an offense and arrested the accused. The investigation revealed that the accused had forged various documents and used them to cheat people. Shockingly, these forged documents were in the names of prestigious Indian institutions and organizations such as the Archaeological Survey of India (Delhi), Defence Research and Development Organisation (Delhi), Vigilance and Legal Department (Bengaluru), Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (Trombay), and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, among others.

The applicant/accused, Sumit Mukund Nagarale, through his counsel Ld. Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, claimed false implication and denied committing or abetting any offense. It was argued that no specific role was attributed to Nagarale, who was merely alleged to be a partner of accused No. 1. The defense contended that the accusations did not disclose a prima facie case against Nagarale and emphasized that he was not a beneficiary of any amount in the alleged crime. Furthermore, the defense pointed out that a co-accused, Anil Kumar, had already been granted bail by the predecessor in office, and on this basis, sought Nagarale’s release on bail.

The prosecution, represented by Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Anand Sukhdeve, strongly opposed the bail application. The prosecution labeled the applicant as a “professional cheater.” Crucially, forged documents and their PDF files were allegedly retrieved from Nagarale’s mobile phone on January 21, 2022. Other seized electronic devices reportedly revealed that these documents were edited using CorelDRAW software. The investigation further indicated that Nagarale had forged documents in the names of the RBI, the Finance Ministry (Union of India), DRDO, ISRO, RAW, other Indian administrative offices, and multinational banks. The prosecution stated that they had corresponded with these institutions and banks, with responses awaited from some. The prosecution also expressed concerns about the applicant absconding and tampering with prosecution evidence, urging the court to reject the bail application.

After a detailed examination of the case records, Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar noted that the applicant was admittedly intercepted at the same location as a co-accused. The data retrieved from Nagarale’s mobile phone strongly indicated his active involvement in the alleged crime. Additionally, other incriminating and objectionable materials were reportedly seized from him. The court also pointed out that Nagarale had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his presence at the scene and had not denied his association with the co-accused.

The court reiterated the settled principle that while deciding a bail application, the court must ascertain the existence of a prima facie case without conducting an exhaustive inquiry into the merits of the prosecution’s case.

Furthermore, the court noted that Nagarale had previously filed a bail application before the learned Magistrate Court based on the same set of facts after the filing of the charge-sheet, and that application was rejected. The court observed that Nagarale had failed to present any substantial change in circumstances since the Magistrate Court’s rejection that would warrant granting him bail.

The defense relied on several case laws arguing that when the entire case is based on documents already in the investigating agency’s possession, further detention of the accused is unnecessary. However, the court distinguished the present case, highlighting that Nagarale, in alleged connivance with co-accused, had forged documents in the names of various central, national, and international institutions. The investigating agency was still awaiting responses from some of these institutions regarding the forged documents. The court found that the applicant’s role was apparently established and that the cited case laws were not applicable at this stage. The prosecution’s assertion of potential enhancement of charges based on further investigation also weighed against granting bail.

In light of these facts, the court concluded that it was not a fit case for the grant of bail.

Consequently, the court passed the following order:

ORDER

Bail Application No. 826/2022 stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.

The order was dictated on July 19, 2022, transcribed on July 20, 2022, and signed on July 26, 2022, by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar. This decision means that Sumit Mukund Nagarale will remain in custody pending further legal proceedings in the alleged precious metal pot scam.