Mumbai: Rajesh H. Dahanukar, a 49-year-old resident of Andheri (W), Mumbai, who was implicated as the alleged mastermind in a multi-crore fraud case involving Dena Bank, has been granted bail by the Special Judge for CBI cases, Shri A.S. Sayyad, at the Court of Session for Greater Bombay. Dahanukar, who was lodged at Arthur Road Jail, was released on a personal recognizance (PR) bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount. The court also granted provisional cash bail of the same amount for two weeks. The order was pronounced on February 17, 2020.
Dahanukar was facing charges under sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 409 (criminal breach of trust), 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. These charges relate to Case No. RC/BA1/2017/A0031, at the instance of the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Mumbai.
The prosecution’s case in brief outlines a larger fraud, Special Case No. 33 of 2018, pending trial against four other individuals: Vijay Pandurang Chaudhary @ Shri Ajay Ramchandra Patil, Shri Prafulla Kumar Mishra, Shri Michael Bara, and Shri Shakti Singh. The core allegation against these co-accused is that they engaged in a criminal conspiracy, dishonestly and fraudulently preparing forged documents, specifically Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) purportedly issued by the Dunge Post Office, Bhiwandi. Through this elaborate scheme, they allegedly extracted a substantial sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and cheated the Dena Bank, Manish Nagar Branch, Mumbai.
During further investigation into this fraud, Rajesh H. Dahanukar came under scrutiny, with the prosecution identifying him as the “mastermind” behind the entire operation. It was alleged that after being partly examined by the investigating officer, Dahanukar absconded and was not found at his declared family residence. The investigation further revealed that on February 6, 2020, amounts of Rs. 7 lakhs and Rs. 4.5 lakhs were withdrawn from the account of accused no. 1 (presumably Vijay Pandurang Chaudhary) by one Shri Jatin Padaya, allegedly on Dahanukar’s instructions. Additionally, Rs. 23.69 lakhs were transferred to the account of M/s. Queen Trading (Proprietor: Shri Varis Rupabindra), and Rs. 14.75 lakhs to M/s. Om Enterprises (Proprietor: Shri Somnath Banargee).
The CBI, represented by Ld. SPP Shri Sandeep Singh, vehemently opposed Dahanukar’s bail application, filing a strong ‘say’ (reply). The prosecution emphasized the gravity of the offense and asserted Dahanukar’s prima facie involvement as the mastermind. They highlighted his alleged role in orchestrating the withdrawal of large sums of money from the bank. A key point of contention for the prosecution was Dahanukar’s “unclear criminal antecedent,” stating that “various serious crimes are registered against the applicant in various police stations,” portraying him as a “habitual offender.” The CBI expressed concerns that if released on bail, Dahanukar might tamper with or hamper prosecution evidence.
However, after hearing arguments from Ld. Advocate Shri D.D. Rai for Dahanukar and Ld. SPP for CBI, and meticulously perusing the investigating papers, Special Judge A.S. Sayyad arrived at a different conclusion. The court acknowledged Dahanukar’s involvement in Special Case No. 33 of 2018 and noted that while there were indeed “many crimes registered against the present applicant in various police stations for having committed serious offenses,” the investigation in Special Case No. 33 of 2018 had already been completed, and a charge-sheet submitted. Furthermore, the trial in this specific case had already commenced and was partly heard.
The court observed that while some witnesses had implicated Dahanukar, with the investigation concluded and the trial underway, there was no apparent need for his further incarceration for purposes of “recovery or discovery.” The principal accused in the case was already in custody, and other co-accused were out on bail. The court also noted that initially, no crime was registered directly against Dahanukar, nor had a charge-sheet been specifically forwarded against him at the outset. Critically, the court remarked that “From the allegations levelled against the accused, it appears that the present applicant no appears to be beneficiary in the alleged conspiracy from the documents.” The court found that Dahanukar was a permanent resident of the vicinity and, given the completed investigation and partly concluded trial, there appeared to be no probability of him hampering or tampering with evidence if released.
Considering the nature of the offense and the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the court concluded that no prejudice would be caused by releasing Dahanukar on bail, provided stringent conditions were imposed.
The bail order, Criminal Bail Application No. 120 of 2020, was allowed subject to the following strict conditions:
- Execution of a PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties of the like amount.
- Provisional cash bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- granted for two weeks.
- The applicant shall not directly or indirectly induce, influence, pressurize, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the accusations to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court or investigating agency, and shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.
- The applicant shall remain present in court on every date without fail.
- In the event of any violation of these conditions, the prosecution retains the liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
The order was signed by Special Judge A.S. Sayyad on February 18, 2020, and uploaded on the same day.