Mumbai, April 4, 2024 – Abhishek Gangaram Mahadik, a 32-year-old finance supervisor, has been denied bail by the Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act in Mumbai. Mahadik is accused of misappropriating over ₹16 crore from his employer, Interasia Shipping Lines India Pvt. Ltd. (FE).
Judge Aditee Uday Kadam, presiding over the City Civil & Sessions Court, rejected Mahadik’s bail application (Bail Application No. 566 of 2024) in connection with Crime Register No. 58 of 2023, registered with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Unit IV, Mumbai. The case also bears the Sahar Police Station Crime Register No. 594 of 2023.
Mahadik faces charges under sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant, banker, merchant or agent), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing1 delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating),2 and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of the Indian Penal3 Code (IPC).
Prosecution’s Case:
According to the prosecution, Mahadik, who worked as a Senior Supervisor in FE’s Finance Treasury Department, was authorized to manage the company’s bank accounts. Between May 12, 2023, and August 9, 2023, he allegedly fabricated vouchers, emails, and bank statements to fraudulently transfer ₹16,43,79,000 (approximately ₹16.44 crore) to his personal bank accounts. The prosecution further alleged that Mahadik attempted to conceal his actions by creating forged bank statements.
Defense Arguments:
Mahadik’s advocate, Gopal More, argued that his client was innocent and falsely implicated by senior officers. He emphasized that Mahadik was the sole breadwinner of his family, with his father suffering from cancer. He also pointed out that Mahadik had been in custody since November 10, 2023, approximately five months, and that the investigation was complete. More cited a previous Bombay High Court ruling, Anita Shankar Kirdat vs. The State of Maharashtra, where prolonged incarceration was considered a ground for bail.
Prosecution’s Objections:
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Seema Deshpande strongly opposed the bail, asserting that there was substantial documentary evidence implicating Mahadik. The prosecution highlighted that ₹17.45 crore was transferred from FE’s accounts to Mahadik’s accounts during the relevant period. They also presented evidence of Mahadik’s trading losses and his transfer of ₹15,17,156 to colleagues. The prosecution emphasized that Mahadik had admitted to his actions and returned ₹1 crore to FE.
Court’s Decision:
Judge Kadam rejected Mahadik’s bail application, noting that his earlier bail applications had been denied on merit and that no new circumstances warranted a reconsideration. The court acknowledged the severity of the offense, involving a significant financial scam and substantial losses to FE.
The court also considered the potential for Mahadik to tamper with witnesses, who were his colleagues, and the risk of him fleeing justice, as he did not have a permanent address.
Judge Kadam emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses, stating that they “need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offense affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”
Based on these considerations, the court concluded that Mahadik was not entitled to bail and dismissed his application. The court ruled that the precedent cited by the defense was not applicable in this specific case.