The Court of Session for Greater Bombay rejected the regular bail application of Mohan Raghunath Dhadwe, an applicant accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust involving gold ornaments worth approximately ₹5,00,000/-. Additional Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar (C.R. No. 58), in an order dated May 3, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1087 of 2024, ruled that the applicant was not entitled to bail at this stage because the gold property had not been recovered, the investigation was incomplete, and the applicant had failed to cooperate with police interrogation. Mr. Dhadwe was arrested in connection with FIR No. 439 of 2024 registered with Dadar Police Station for offenses under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Complex Multi-Layered Gold Fraud
The prosecution’s case, based on the complaint of Minal Santosh Neman, outlines a complex series of transactions beginning in 2019:
- Initial Transaction: The informant initially took an ₹80,000 loan from the applicant, Mohan Dhadwe, by pledging gold ornaments weighing 48.370 grams. The informant later repaid the principal and interest.
- Failure to Return: Despite full repayment, the applicant failed to return the ornaments. He later claimed he had pledged the gold with a third party, Prakash Sharma.
- Further Transactions: The informant was forced into a series of subsequent dealings with Prakash Sharma (and another individual, Prashant Jain) to retrieve her gold. Eventually, the applicant offered ₹80,000 to Prakash Sharma to secure some new ornaments (54.370 grams) in lieu of the original ones.
- Final Default: The fraud concluded when the applicant’s cheque issued to Prakash Sharma for ₹2,38,700/- bounced, and he stopped contacting the informant, leaving her without her original gold and with losses estimated at ₹5,00,000/-.
The FIR alleged that the applicant and Prakash Sharma conspired to misappropriate the gold ornaments and defraud the informant.
Judicial Analysis: Circumstantial Involvement and Lack of Cooperation
The applicant’s defense, led by Advocate Abhishek Kamble, argued that the investigation was almost over, no recovery was effected from the applicant, and he had no criminal antecedents. The defense also raised a technical argument that offenses under Sections 406 and 420 IPC could not be simultaneously invoked—a point the court did not directly address in its final ruling.
The prosecution, through APP Pankaj Chavan, strongly opposed the application, emphasizing the significant value of the property still unrecovered and the possibility that the applicant might pressurize the informant or witnesses if released. They also suggested the involvement of a larger “racket.”
The Sessions Judge’s decision hinged on the following crucial points:
- Primary Culpability: The Court found that the informant’s initial direct transaction and entrustment of gold was with the applicant, Mohan Dhadwe. He was the one who failed to return the ornaments after repayment, initiating the entire chain of fraudulent events.
- Irrelevant Defense: The Judge explicitly rejected the applicant’s attempt to deflect blame by pointing out that Prakash Sharma was not arrested. The Court ruled that the subsequent transaction between Dhadwe and Sharma was “altogether different” from the original breach of trust with the informant, and therefore, Sharma’s non-arrest offered no benefit to the applicant.
- Failure to Recover: The Court noted that the non-recovery of the gold from the applicant during his month-long interrogation was a clear indicator that he had “not co-operated” with the investigation.
Conclusion: Threat to Evidence
The Sessions Judge concluded that since the property involved in the fraud was still not recovered, and the charge-sheet was yet to be filed (meaning the investigation was still ongoing), releasing the applicant at this stage would pose a risk.
The Court held that “there is possibility that he may tamper with the evidence,” and therefore, the applicant could not be admitted to bail. Criminal Bail Application No. 1087 of 2024 was rejected, maintaining judicial custody to secure the recovery of the property and ensure the smooth completion of the fraud investigation.