Mumbai, Thane [Current Location] – April 16, 2025 – The Special Judge for CBI at Greater Bombay has rejected the bail application of Kalpesh Jayram Koshti, the owner of Ahmedabad Express News Paper Press. Koshti was arrested in connection with a significant bank fraud case (R.C. No. 14/E/2017-CBI, EOW, Mumbai) involving alleged offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The order, dated January 22, 2018, was pronounced by H.H. the Special Judge Shri. Jayendra C. Jagdale (C. R. No. 51) in Bail Application No. 39 of 2018, filed in relation to Remand Application No. 40 of 2018.

Koshti, 41, was accused of offenses punishable under Section 120(B) r/w 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pertaining to an alleged ₹17 crore fraud against Central Bank of India.

Mr. S. P. Parab, the learned Advocate for Koshti, argued that even accepting the prosecution’s case as it stood, his client was never a party to the fraud or any of the alleged forgery. He contended that none of the ingredients of the alleged offenses were attracted against Koshti and that there was no material to establish any conspiracy with the co-accused. Mr. Parab emphasized that to establish conspiracy, a meeting of minds was necessary, which he argued was absent in the evidence before the court.

He further pointed out that Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhil, Koshti’s employee through whom the money was allegedly transferred, was not arrested by the CBI. Koshti himself never possessed the money, as it was directly transferred to company or individual accounts. He claimed that Koshti was unaware of the fraud and that there was no established nexus between him and the alleged fraudulent activities.

Mr. Parab highlighted that Koshti had already repaid the amount involved, the details of which were provided to the investigating agency. He asserted that Koshti never benefited from the alleged transactions and never gained wrongfully, contrary to the complainant’s suggestions, which lacked documentary evidence. He concluded that the entire case was based on documentary evidence already in the investigating agency’s custody, with nothing further to be recovered from Koshti. Furthermore, he argued that Koshti was not attributed any direct overt act in the commission of the alleged offense and that since the charge sheet had been filed, custody for investigation purposes was no longer required, urging the court to grant bail.

Mr. J. K. Sharma, the learned S.P.P. for the CBI, opposed the bail application. The prosecution’s case detailed how Shri. Ashok Kumar Singh and his son Shri. Aashish Kumar Singh, through their respective firms, availed overdraft facilities and other loans totaling ₹17 crores from different branches of Central Bank of India based on forged and fabricated documents. The bank discovered that the firms and membership numbers provided did not exist.

The prosecution alleged that Koshti, the owner of Ahmedabad Express News Paper Press, employed Shri. Ravikumar Ashokbhai Bhil as an office and circulation boy. On Koshti’s instructions, Bhil allegedly opened two bank accounts used for “Havala Business” (illegal money transfer). The prosecution claimed that money was transferred into these accounts on Koshti’s instructions and that Koshti took a commission for siphoning off the “Crime Proceed Money.” All transactions were allegedly carried out under Koshti’s direction, leading the prosecution to seek rejection of his bail application.

Special Judge Jagdale noted the prosecution’s allegations that Koshti ran a printing press in Ahmedabad and had allegedly opened fraudulent bank accounts in his employee Bhil’s name. Following Koshti’s instructions, ₹3,23,75,641 was allegedly transferred from M/s. Aashish Communication’s account to M/s. Ahmedabad Sales Corporation’s account. Subsequently, ₹1,35,25,641 was further transferred to a co-accused, Shri. Janardhan Pandey, through another account, with the remaining amount withdrawn in cash.

The court observed that the investigation was ongoing and that the allegations against Koshti indicated a “vital role in siphoning off the huge amount.” Given that the investigation was not yet complete and the serious nature of Koshti’s alleged involvement in the financial irregularities, the court concluded that he could not be released on bail at this stage.

Consequently, Special Judge Jagdale rejected Bail Application No. 39 of 2018, stating that the application stood disposed of accordingly. The order highlighted the court’s assessment of Koshti’s significant alleged role in the siphoning of funds and the ongoing nature of the investigation as primary reasons for denying bail. This decision underscores the judiciary’s reluctance to grant bail in substantial economic offense cases, especially when the accused is alleged to have played a key role in the commission of the crime and the investigation is still underway.