MUMBAI, March 16, 2024 — The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, has rejected the bail application of Ali Raza Abdul Karim Shaikh, a prime accused in a major cheating and conspiracy case involving fraud amounting to ₹1.95 crore. The court found that Shaikh’s role was clearly identified and the substantial amount of proceeds of crime was yet to be recovered.
Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar (C.R. No.37) passed the oral order on March 15, 2024, in connection with C.R. No. 421 of 2023 registered at Matunga Police Station. The accused faces charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 406 (Criminal breach of trust), 420 (Cheating), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), 120-B (Criminal conspiracy), and 506(2) (Criminal intimidation).
The Conspiracy and Forgery Allegations
The prosecution’s case alleges that between September 27, 2021, and February 14, 2022, Ali Raza Shaikh, along with four co-accused (Jay @ Raju Manglani, Valmik Goler, Vijay Nadar, and Vikrant D. Sonawane), conspired to defraud the informant.
The accused allegedly gained the informant’s trust by promising to facilitate the transfer of a liquor license, secure benefits from the APMC Market in Navi Mumbai, and help exonerate him from an existing criminal case. Under this pretense, the accused group received a total of ₹1,95,68,000/- from the informant.
The investigation revealed that Ali Raza Shaikh was allegedly impersonating “Vikrant S. Sonawane,” in whose name the liquor license was registered, and had forged a PAN card to gain the informant’s faith. When the informant eventually demanded his money back, he was allegedly threatened at gunpoint (Section 506(2) IPC).
Bail Rejected Despite Co-Accused’s Release
The defense counsel, Mr. Naqeeb Gadhwala, argued that Shaikh was falsely implicated, had been arrested since October 6, 2023, and that since the trial would take substantial time, he should be released. A key argument for bail was parity, citing that co-accused Aarif Patel and Raju Manglani had been enlarged on bail by the Bombay High Court. The defense also claimed the accused had given the informant some cheques which were misused, and that the informant had initiated proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.
The prosecution, led by Ld. APP Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal, and the intervener’s advocate, Mr. Ravleen Sabharwal, strongly opposed the plea. They asserted that Ali Raza Shaikh was the “prime accused” and a direct recipient of at least ₹72,68,000/- of the defrauded amount, with evidence showing he transferred a further ₹13.85 lakhs to other accounts. They also noted the accused has criminal antecedents.
High Court Observations Distinguish Roles
Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar meticulously examined the Bombay High Court order granting bail to the co-accused and found that the parity argument did not apply to Ali Raza Shaikh. The Sessions Court cited the High Court’s observation:
“It does not appear that the cash amount was either paid to the applicant [co-accused] or he was present when the cash amount was paid to the co-accused Ali Raza Shaikh. Subsequently a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was again delivered to Ali Raza Shaikh.”
Based on this observation, the Sessions Judge concluded that Ali Raza Shaikh’s role was “well identified” and considering the “quantum of amount as received by the applicant,” his case was distinguishable.
The court ultimately agreed with the prosecution’s apprehension that there was every possibility that the accused might tamper with the prosecution evidence, especially since the substantial amount involved in the crime is “yet to be recovered.”
Finding no “supervening grounds” for release, Criminal Bail Application No. 621 of 2024 was rejected.