The Court of Session for Greater Bombay, in an order dated March 27th, 2024, granted bail to businessman Hiren Ramesh Bhagat in connection with a complex case of alleged extortion. The applicant, arrested in C.R. No. 09/2024 (corresponding to C.R. No. 109/2024 of Bandra Police Station) involving charges under Sections 386 (Extortion), 387 (Putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt), 506(II) (Criminal intimidation), and 120-B (Criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, successfully secured his release under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
The Allegations and The Applicant’s Role
The case centers on a dispute between the informant, a construction businessman, and co-accused Satish Dhanuka, a proprietor in real estate. The informant’s company had initially agreed to pay ₹41,00,75,000/- to Dhanuka, but only ₹8.10 crores was paid before a redevelopment agreement was terminated.
The FIR alleges that the informant received threats, including a WhatsApp call, demanding he settle the dispute with Satish Dhanuka or face proceedings from the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.). A subsequent meeting was allegedly arranged through a friend, Pankaj, and his acquaintance, Sandeep. In the meeting, attended by six people including Satish Dhanuka, an extortion demand of ₹164 crores was allegedly made, coupled with a threat to kill the informant if the demand was not met.
While Hiren Ramesh Bhagat was not named in the initial FIR, the prosecution later implicated him, alleging he was involved in a similar modus operandi to extort money from various persons using the threat of E.D. proceedings. The prosecution’s opposition highlighted that the applicant used a SIM card of an Australian company and that a huge amount of assets (estimated at ₹13 crores) were seized from him, along with a recovery of ₹8.20 lacs allegedly at his instance.
The Rationale for Granting Bail
The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, considered the arguments from both Advocate Jugal Kanani for the applicant and APP Iqbal Solkar for the State. While acknowledging the serious nature of the crime, the court relied on several established principles of bail jurisprudence to grant the relief:
- Parity with Co-accused: The most compelling factor was the principle of parity. The court noted that the principal accused, Satish Dhanuka, had already been granted interim pre-arrest bail by the same court on January 29th, 2024. If the principal accused was afforded liberty, the applicant, who was arraigned later, should also be considered for bail.
- Investigation Completion: The court observed that the chargesheet had already been filed and the investigation appeared to be complete. This nullified the prosecution’s argument that continued custody was required for the collection of evidence.
- Irrelevant Recovery: The court noted that the various “suspectable articles,” including cash, jewelry, and guns, recovered from the applicant’s premises appeared to be “not related to the present crime,” lessening their impact on the current bail application.
- No Serious Punishment: The court emphasized the maxim that “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” and noted that the offenses charged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
- No Criminal Antecedents: The prosecution’s ‘say’ did not report any criminal antecedents against the applicant.
Conditions for Release
Based on these findings, the court allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 644 of 2024. Hiren Ramesh Bhagat was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a Personal Bond (P.B.) and a Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹30,000/- with one or two sureties, subject to the following key conditions:
- No Tampering: The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence in any manner.
- Police Attendance: He shall attend the concerned police station on the 2nd Saturday of every month between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for the next three months.
- Travel Restriction: He shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
- Provisional Cash Bail: The court allowed provisional cash bail in the like amount, granting him four weeks to furnish the surety, failing which the cash bail would automatically be forfeited.
This decision ensures the applicant’s attendance during trial while recognizing the legal mandate to grant liberty when the necessity for pre-trial detention is no longer paramount.