Mumbai, India – July 24, 2025 – In a significant order from April 8, 2021, a Special Judge for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Greater Mumbai rejected the bail application of Sankeshwar Singh, an individual accused of being a key player and “mastermind” in a ₹17.53 crore car loan fraud scheme targeting the State Bank of India (SBI). The court cited the magnitude of the economic offense, Singh’s “incriminating role,” and the nascent stage of the investigation as primary reasons for the denial.

Sankeshwar Singh, 38, was arrested in connection with CBI’s R.C. No. 05/E/2020, registered following a complaint from SBI, Mumbai. The charges against him include criminal conspiracy, cheating, and various forms of forgery under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471), read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (criminal misconduct by a public servant).

The Allegations: A Sprawling Car Loan Scam

According to the prosecution, the alleged fraud took place between October 2016 and March 2018, during which a large number of car loans were sanctioned and disbursed. A subsequent scrutiny revealed that 46 car loan accounts were found to be fraudulent, based on fake and fabricated documents. The CBI asserts that these illicit activities resulted in a staggering loss of ₹17,53,11,005.97 (approximately ₹17.53 Crores) to the complainant bank, plus interest and other charges.

The CBI’s investigation revealed that Sankeshwar Singh allegedly facilitated the crediting of loan amounts to fictitious accounts opened by co-accused Ganesh Ubhare and Hansdeep Bhasin, specifically through entities like M/s. G3 Motors and M/s. Krishiv Motors.

Accused’s Alleged Incriminating Role and Non-Cooperation

While Sankeshwar Singh contended that he had no concern with the documents submitted by others and that his own three car loans from the bank were either repaid or had installments being paid, the CBI’s investigation presented a starkly different picture, which was largely accepted by the court.

The probe indicated that Singh was one of thirty borrowers who availed car loans through Ganesh Ubhare, proprietor of M/s. Vroom Motors, who acted as an auto loan counselor. The CBI alleged that Singh himself availed a loan facility of ₹1.90 Crores jointly in his name and that of his wife, Soni Singh, using fake and forged documents.

Furthermore, the investigation found that Singh allegedly facilitated the sanction of loans in the names of his family members, relatives, and associates – including his wife Fuljaha Khan, neighbor Pushpa Nair, and Tabassum Khan – by preparing forged and bogus documents to inflate their financial worth and make them eligible for high-value car loans. The CBI contended that Singh was the direct beneficiary of loan proceeds totaling ₹3.28 Crores, obtained through these means in the names of his family members.

The prosecution also accused Singh of being the “mastermind and executor” of the criminal conspiracy. It was alleged that he maintained a “hostile and non-cooperative attitude” during the investigation, failing to provide requested documents and details despite being served with notices. Moreover, the CBI claimed that Singh influenced witnesses, which hampered the ongoing investigation.

Defense’s Plea for Bail and Court’s Rejection

During the bail hearing, Sankeshwar Singh’s counsel, Mr. Darshan Juikar, argued that the case was based on documentary evidence already seized, negating the need for further custody. He also pointed out that the initial FIR was largely silent on Singh’s specific role, with primary allegations focused on Ganesh Ubhare. The defense notably sought bail on grounds of “parity,” stating that co-accused Ganesh Ubhare had already been enlarged on bail.

However, Special Judge Vivek V. Kathare systematically debunked the defense’s arguments. He observed that while the initial complaint might have been silent on Singh’s detailed involvement, his “incriminating role” clearly came to light as the investigation proceeded and was highlighted by the CBI in its reply.

Crucially, the court rejected the “parity” argument concerning Ganesh Ubhare’s bail. The judge clarified that Ubhare was granted bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. (default bail), which occurs when the investigating agency fails to file a charge-sheet within a stipulated period. This, the court explained, was an “indefeasible right accrued” to the accused and was granted “without considering the merit of the matter.” Therefore, Singh could not claim bail on similar grounds.

Considering the substantial nature of the economic offense, the detailed incriminating role attributed to Sankeshwar Singh, and the fact that the investigation was still at a “nascent stage,” Special Judge Kathare concluded that it was not desirable to grant bail to Singh at that point.

The bail application was consequently rejected.