Mumbai, July 21, 2022 – Bhavin Rameshchandra Timbadia, a rickshaw driver, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a multi-crore fraud case. Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Menjoge granted bail, citing the lack of direct allegations against Timbadia in the FIR and his cooperation with the investigation.

Timbadia, 45, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 112/2016, registered at the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Unit-3, Mumbai. He was charged with offences punishable under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property), 414 (assisting in concealment of stolen property), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property),¹ 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 474 (having possession of document² knowing it to be forged), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender), and 120(b) (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.³

The Allegations and Complainant’s Account

The case involves allegations that Sanjay Shah and Mitesh Mehta, directors of M/s Somil Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., defrauded complainants by purchasing raw materials for medicines on credit and then failing to pay for them, resulting in a loss of over Rs. 45 crore.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Observations

Timbadia’s defense, led by Advocate Girish Kulkarni, argued that he was falsely implicated in the case and that there were no direct allegations against him in the FIR. They emphasized that Timbadia was not a director of M/s Somil Enterprises and had cooperated with the police investigation. The defense also pointed out that the police had seized significant assets from co-accused Sanjay Shah.

The prosecution argued that the offense was serious, the charge sheet had not been filed, and a large sum of money was involved. They also noted that one of the co-accused, Mitesh Mehta, had left India.

However, the court, after reviewing the case diary and hearing arguments from both sides, noted that:

• Timbadia was not a director of M/s Somil Enterprises.
• His name was not mentioned in the FIR.
• Though Rs. 8,31,58,000/- were transferred to his account by the accused company, he returned the amount through RTGS.
• Timbadia had been in custody since June 13, 2022, and nothing more was required to be seized from him.

Reasons for Granting Bail

The court cited the following reasons for granting bail:

• Lack of Direct Allegations: There were no direct allegations against Timbadia in the FIR.
• Cooperation with Investigation: Timbadia cooperated with the police investigation.
• Return of Funds: He returned the funds transferred to his account.
• Lack of Evidence of Conspiracy: The court found no evidence that Timbadia was involved in a conspiracy with the other accused.
• No Necessity for Further Detention: The court concluded that no purpose would be served by keeping Timbadia in custody.

Conditions of Bail

Timbadia was granted bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• He must not pressurize prosecution witnesses in any manner.
• He must not commit any offense while on bail.
• He must attend court dates regularly, unless exempted.
• He must furnish his correct address to the investigating officer.
• He was granted a provisional cash bail of Rs. 50,000 for a period of four weeks, to allow him time to organize his surety bonds.
• Bail before the Ld. Magistrate.

Implications and Future Proceedings

The granting of bail highlights the court’s emphasis on direct evidence and the importance of distinguishing between mere financial transactions and active participation in fraudulent activities. The case will proceed with further investigation and trial, where the prosecution will present its evidence, and the defense will have the opportunity to challenge the allegations. This decision reflects the courts careful consideration of facts and circumstances in criminal proceedings.