Mumbai, March 1, 2024 – The Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, has granted bail to Sandeep Anand Gundlapelli, accused in a cheating and forgery case. Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar, presiding over Court Room No. 37, allowed Gundlapelli’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 450 of 2024), citing his limited role in the alleged offense and imposing stringent conditions.

Gundlapelli was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 155 of 2023, registered at Sion Police Station, for offenses under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), and 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, the complainant was looking for a new house and was introduced to Gundlapelli by her matrimonial uncle. Gundlapelli allegedly offered her a MHADA flat at a low price. The complainant selected three flats in the MIG Scheme and paid a total of ₹28,20,600 to Gundlapelli and his co-accused, including cash and demand drafts. The complainant alleged that she was not given possession of the flats, nor was her money returned.

Defense Arguments:

Gundlapelli, through his advocate Mahesh Salvi, argued that he was falsely implicated and that he was merely an employee of the main accused. He claimed that the complainant had entered into a friendly loan agreement with the main accused and was receiving monetary benefits. He also stated that he had given cheques as security for the loan. He denied fabricating any letters and argued that his role was limited to receiving money in his account and witnessing a forged agreement. He further argued that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Abhijeet Gondwal, opposed the bail application. They argued that Gundlapelli and his co-accused had obtained large sums of money from various individuals and that correspondence from the Income Tax department regarding their income and properties was awaited. They expressed concerns about Gundlapelli absconding, tampering with evidence, and threatening witnesses.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Joglekar, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:

• Admission of Receipt of Payment: The court noted that Gundlapelli admitted to receiving payments from the complainant and her relatives.
• Role as Facilitator and Witness: The court acknowledged Gundlapelli’s role as a facilitator and witness to the alleged forged agreement.
• MHADA Letter: The court highlighted the letter from MHADA stating that the documents given to the complainant were not issued by them.
• Entrustment and Usage of Funds: The court noted that Gundlapelli’s admission of receiving funds implied entrustment and usage of those funds by the co-accused.
• Apprehensions Addressed by Conditions: The court stated that the prosecution’s apprehensions could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions on Gundlapelli.

Judge Joglekar concluded that Gundlapelli’s bail application deserved consideration and granted bail subject to conditions.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Gundlapelli bail on the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹30,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• He and his sureties must provide their residential addresses, mobile numbers, and email addresses.
• He must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case.
• He must not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
• He must attend Sion Police Station every Tuesday and Friday between 11:00 AM and 4:00 PM until further orders.
• He must surrender his passport or furnish an affidavit stating he does not have one.
• He must not leave India without permission from the court.
• Any breach of the conditions will result in cancellation of bail.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Limited Role: The court considered Gundlapelli’s limited role in the alleged offense as a factor in granting bail.
• Admission of Receipt: The court noted Gundlapelli’s admission of receiving payments.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed stringent conditions to address the prosecution’s concerns and ensure Gundlapelli’s compliance.
• Balancing Rights and Interests: The court balanced the rights of the accused with the interests of justice by granting bail subject to conditions.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in considering bail applications in cases involving financial offenses, particularly when the accused’s role is limited and conditions can be imposed to mitigate potential risks.