Mumbai, March 2, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Vikramsingh Motisingh Rao @ Vikram Surawat, a goldsmith accused of cheating. Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge S.D. Kulkarni, presiding over Court Room No. 66, allowed Surawat’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 294 of 2024), citing the nature of the dispute as a business transaction and the completion of the investigation.

Surawat was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 1065/2022, registered at L.T. Marg Police Station, for offenses under sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).¹

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the complainant, he and Surawat had a business relationship since January 2020. Surawat, a goldsmith, would order gold ornaments from the complainant, who would prepare them in 22-carat gold. Surawat would then provide 24-carat gold to the complainant. However, in the last transaction, the complainant prepared 1414 grams of gold ornaments based on Surawat’s order, but Surawat allegedly failed to provide the 24-carat gold.

Defense Arguments:

Surawat, through his advocate M.S. Mali, argued that he was falsely implicated and that the dispute arose from a business transaction. He emphasized that the complainant had not provided GST vouchers, delivery challans, or GST bills for the alleged gold. He stated that the FIR did not specify the type of gold ornaments involved. He also highlighted that he was arrested on December 11, 2023, had undergone custodial interrogation, and was now in judicial custody. The charge sheet had been filed, and nothing remained to be seized from him.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Lade, opposed the bail application. They argued that a large amount of gold was yet to be recovered, that the investigation was ongoing, and that Surawat, being a resident of Udaipur, Rajasthan, posed a flight risk. They also expressed concerns about witness tampering and the need for further investigation due to the substantial amount of gold involved.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

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

• Business Transaction: The court noted that the dispute arose from a business transaction between the complainant and Surawat.
• Completed Investigation: The court observed that Surawat had been arrested long ago, custodial interrogation was completed, and gold articles were seized from him, indicating that nothing remained to be seized.
• No Intention to Deceive: The court found no evidence suggesting that Surawat intended to deceive the complainant from the beginning.
• Goldsmith Profession: The court considered Surawat’s profession as a goldsmith, suggesting a lower risk of him fleeing.
• Trial Delay: The court acknowledged the potential delay in the trial and concluded that it was not just to keep Surawat in custody until the trial’s conclusion.

Judge Kulkarni concluded that, considering the nature of the dispute and the completed investigation, Surawat was entitled to be released on bail.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Surawat bail on the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Bond (P.B.) and Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹25,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses and evidence.
• Provisional cash bail of the same amount was allowed, with the condition that he must furnish surety within four weeks, failing which the cash bail would be forfeited.
• He must not leave India without prior court permission.
• He must not involve in similar types of offenses in the future.
• Bail must be furnished before the learned Trial Court.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Nature of Dispute: The court considered the nature of the dispute as a business transaction.
• Completed Investigation: The court considered the completion of the investigation and the seizure of evidence.
• Profession and Flight Risk: The court considered the accused’s profession and its impact on the flight risk.
• Trial Delay: The court considered the potential delay in the trial.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly in cases involving business disputes and completed investigations.