The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay has rejected the bail application of Hiren Ramesh Bhagat (50), a Mumbai-based businessman, accused of impersonating an Enforcement Directorate (ED) official to extort money.

Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, in the order dated March 30, 2024, ruled against granting bail, highlighting the serious and substantial allegations against the applicant, the huge amount of money involved (₹9.25 Crores), and the ongoing investigation.

Case Details and Allegations

• Applicant: Hiren Ramesh Bhagat.
• Case: C.R. No. 17 of 2024 (corresponding to C.R. No. 263/2024, Bandra Police Station).
• Offences: Sections 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy), 386 (Extortion), and 506(ii) (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Core Allegations:
  1. In 2018, the applicant impersonated himself as a Senior Officer of the Directorate of Enforcement (E.D.) and contacted the informant, Mr. Tarachand Mulchand Varma.
  2. The informant’s son, Peter, was facing prosecution (presumably in the M/s Cox and Kings Ltd. case) where the family’s properties were attached/seized by the ED.
  3. The applicant induced the informant with the assurance of securing his son’s release and the de-attachment of properties, in exchange for money.
  4. The informant transferred ₹9,25,00,000/- (₹9.25 Crores) to a bank account of Tulip Hotels (an entity owned by Peter Kerkar, the son), from which ₹6.25 Crores and then ₹3 Crores were withdrawn and allegedly paid in cash to the applicant.
  5. When the informant stopped paying, the applicant met him near Metro Cinema, showed a pistol, and threatened him with life if he failed to pay.
  6. Following the threat, the informant paid an additional ₹3,00,00,000/- (₹3 Crores) in cash and gifted the applicant a wrist watch worth ₹75 Lakhs.

Court’s Rationale for Rejecting Bail

The Court acknowledged the applicant’s defense counsel’s arguments disputing the facts and the applicability of the sections but found the prosecution’s case to be substantial at this stage:

1. Gravity and Modus Operandi: The allegations involve impersonation of a central agency official (ED), extortion of a huge amount of money (₹9.25 Crores), and a threat to kill using a pistol. The Court noted that this is the applicant’s alleged modus operandi to extort money by threatening prosecution.
2. Ongoing Investigation: The investigation is currently “in progress,” and the statements of some witnesses are still being recorded. The Investigating Officer submitted that a “huge amount is recovered from the premises of the accused.”
3. Risk to Investigation and Witnesses: The Court ruled that releasing the applicant at this prima facie stage would “hamper the investigation,” pose a “serious threat to the prosecution witnesses,” and create “chances of tampering of prosecution witnesses.”

Given the serious nature of the allegations, the quantum of the extorted money, and the concerns regarding evidence tampering and witness intimidation, the Court rejected the bail application.