Mumbai, Maharashtra – May 17, 2022 – The Sessions Court at Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Smt. Chitra Hankare (C.R. No. 10), has rejected the second bail application of Mr. Tejal Madhukar Rupji, 51, in connection with C.R. No. 19 of 2020 registered by R.A. Kidwai Marg Police Station. Rupji, identified as Original Accused No. 2, faces charges under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

Case Background:

The prosecution’s case revolves around allegations of a widespread cheating scheme. The complainant, a Labour Legal Advisor, claimed he was induced by Rupji and other co-accused to book a flat. He allegedly paid a total of Rs. 26 lakhs (Rs. 5 lakhs by cheque and Rs. 21 lakhs in cash) but was never issued an agreement or allotment letter for the flat. The complainant later discovered that both accused had been arrested and subsequently ceased communication with him. The prosecution asserts that Rupji and his co-accused cheated numerous other individuals out of a substantial sum, totaling approximately Rs. 1,87,72,000/-.

Rupji’s previous bail application was rejected. However, a co-accused (Accused No. 1) was granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court, primarily on medical grounds related to a critical health condition and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, though this co-accused later expired.

Arguments for Bail:

Mr. Mangesh Deshmukh, the learned advocate for Rupji, argued that his client should be granted bail on several grounds. He contended that Rupji had issued receipts for all amounts paid by cheque. He also questioned the prosecution’s claim regarding the large cash payment, stating there was no record of how the complainant acquired such a huge cash sum, and that the complainant’s IT returns had not been produced.

Mr. Deshmukh’s primary argument for bail was parity, asserting that since Accused No. 1 had already been released on bail, Rupji was entitled to similar relief. He also sought bail on the merits of the case itself.

Prosecution’s Opposition:

Mr. Ajit Chavan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, strongly opposed the bail application. He highlighted that Rupji was also undergoing punishment awarded by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, which had hindered the investigation. The APP emphasized the significant amount of Rs. 1,87,72,000/- involved in the alleged cheating, which remains unrecovered. He further informed the court that many other offenses were pending against Rupji, suggesting he was a habitual offender. The prosecution expressed concerns that if released on bail, Rupji would pressurize witnesses and potentially abscond, or dispose of the ill-gotten money, given the nature of the economic offense. The APP stressed that Accused No. 1 was granted bail strictly on specific medical grounds, which were not applicable to Rupji.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

After considering the arguments and the case record, Judge Hankare found no significant change in circumstances to warrant a reconsideration of bail, apart from the fact that a co-accused had been released. The court specifically noted that Accused No. 1’s bail was granted “considering his health condition, situation of Pandemic COVID-19 as well as his age,” none of which applied to Rupji. Therefore, the ground of parity was deemed inapplicable in this instance.

The court made several critical observations in denying bail:

• The police have yet to secure custody of the accused (implying potentially his physical custody for investigation or recovery of money).
• There has been no recovery of the cheated amount from Rupji.
• While some payments were made by cheque and received by the accused, he is not showing willingness to return the amount, including the cash sum.
• The huge amount involved points to the serious nature of the economic offense.
• Rupji has already been convicted by another court and has many cases pending against him, leading the court to conclude that he is a habitual offender.
• The nature of the offense is “very serious,” and “so many persons are cheated” by the applicant.

In light of these circumstances, the court found the grounds for bail unsatisfactory and concluded that Tejal Madhukar Rupji was not entitled to bail.

Order:

The Bail Application No. 707 of 2022 was consequently rejected.