Mumbai, Maharashtra – May 17, 2022 – In a continuation of its stance on alleged serial cheating cases, the Sessions Court at Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Smt. Chitra Hankare (C.R. No. 10), has rejected a second bail application filed by Mr. Tejal Madhukar Rupji (51). This application, Bail Application No. 708 of 2022, pertains to C.R. No. 232 of 2019 registered at R.A. Kidwai Marg Police Station, where Rupji is accused under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

This rejection follows a similar denial of bail for Rupji in another cheating case (BA No. 707/2022) on the same day, highlighting the court’s concern over a pattern of alleged offenses.

Case Details:

The current case involves an informant who, along with his aunt, was engaged in the rental car business. Seeking to purchase a house, the informant contacted Rupji Constructions’ Sales Manager. He agreed to buy a flat and initially paid a token amount of Rs. 10 lakhs by two cheques. Subsequently, as per Rupji Constructions’ demand, he issued another cheque for Rs. 25 lakhs. An agreement was registered on September 24, 2013.

However, the builder allegedly neglected to provide the necessary documents for obtaining a loan. Upon the informant’s written request for the documents, Rupji Constructions reportedly replied that the agreement had been cancelled. The informant later discovered he had been cheated and that the builder had sold the same flat to another person. He then met Rupji’s father (Accused No. 1 in this case), who disclosed that the transaction was handled by his son, Tejal Rupji. Consequently, the informant lodged a complaint after initiating proceedings before the Consumer Court. The total amount involved in this specific case is stated to be Rs. 52,50,000/-.

Arguments for Bail:

Mr. Mangesh Deshmukh, representing Tejal Madhukar Rupji, sought bail primarily on the ground of parity, arguing that Rupji’s father (Accused No. 1 in this specific CR) had been released by the Hon’ble High Court. He also mentioned that there was no one to look after Rupji’s aged mother, and raised other general grounds for bail, including the merits of the case.

Prosecution’s Opposition:

Mr. Ajit Chavan, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, vehemently opposed the bail application. He informed the court that Rupji was currently undergoing punishment awarded by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, which had impeded the police’s ability to secure his custody in the present case for further investigation. The APP highlighted that the substantial amount of Rs. 52,50,000/- remained unrecovered. He reiterated that multiple offenses were pending against Rupji, indicating a history of similar crimes. The prosecution expressed strong apprehension that if released, Rupji might pressurize witnesses and abscond, and there was a high likelihood of him repeating similar offenses.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Hankare, in her order, noted that there were no changes in circumstances justifying a second bail application, apart from the co-accused (Rupji’s father) being released on bail. However, the court explicitly stated that the father’s bail was granted by the High Court considering his “health condition, situation of Pandemic COVID-19 as well as his age,” none of which applied to Tejal Rupji. Thus, the ground of parity was found to be inapplicable.

The court made several crucial observations that led to the rejection of bail:

• Despite the informant making payments by cheque and having a registered agreement, Rupji, along with others, allegedly sold the same flat to another person.
• The police have been unable to secure Rupji’s custody in this case due to his ongoing sentence from the Consumer Forum, which has prevented any recovery of the cheated amount.
• The court acknowledged the defense’s argument that Rupji cannot return the money while in jail, but emphasized that “returning of money is not the only issue.”
• Rupji is accused of cheating several persons, and many other offenses are pending against him, reinforcing the concern about him being a habitual offender.
• There is a likelihood of repetition of similar offenses and pressurizing of witnesses if he is released on bail.
• The investigation in this case is still in progress.
• The huge amount involved signifies the seriousness of the economic offense.
• Rupji is already convicted by one court.

Based on these compelling circumstances, the court concluded that the grounds for bail were unsatisfactory and that Tejal Madhukar Rupji was not entitled to be released.

Order:

The Bail Application No. 708 of 2022 was therefore rejected.