Accused Exploiting Religious Trust Denied Anticipatory Bail in Cheating Case Involving Crores.


22 April 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law  

In Manu Wahdwa at Mohit v/s The State, Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi., the accused/applicant's request for anticipatory bail has been denied in a case alleging he and his associates cheated the complainant de facto and her children out of Rs. 5,63,37,090/-. The court noted at the outset that the accused had failed to make any further payments since December 2024, despite previous opportunities granted by earlier benches and a settlement reached at the mediation center. Consequently, the matter was heard on its merits.

The complainant alleged that she and her family, all disciples of a religious preacher, were induced by the accused to invest large sums of money. The accused allegedly gained their trust by claiming to be acting on the preacher's behalf, promising job opportunities and substantial returns on investments made with the preacher's blessings. The complainant stated she was persuaded to invest repeatedly over approximately two years, even selling her property, based on this trust and the accused's reassurances, including addressing her as "Maa" and having his daughters tie him Rakhi.


 


When the complainant and her children requested the return of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-, the accused claimed the money was invested in Dubai and would take time to liquidate. Subsequently, despite assurances, no money was returned.


The accused's counsel argued that he had already paid back Rs. 96,00,000/- as per the mediation settlement (though admitting no payments after December 2024) and that the case was essentially a civil dispute given a criminal tinge. He also contended that since the accused had been cooperating with the investigation, arrest was unnecessary.

However, the Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail, stating that the accused had stopped joining the investigation and had reportedly fled to an undisclosed location. The prosecutor also presented a Status Report indicating that the accused had similarly cheated other followers of the same religious preacher out of more than Rs. 8,00,00,000/-. The prosecutor argued that custodial interrogation was crucial to trace the flow of the defrauded money, as the accused had vaguely claimed to have invested it in cryptocurrency without providing any details. The complainant's counsel also vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail.

The court highlighted that despite repeated indulgences and interim protection granted to the accused based on his promises to repay, he failed to honor the mediation settlement. The court acknowledged the vulnerability of individuals who are induced by claims made in the name of religious figures. Furthermore, the accused failed to provide any credible information about where the substantial sums of money were invested, initially being evasive and later making vague claims about cryptocurrency.

Considering the accused's failure to abide by his commitments, his apparent evasion of investigation, the large sums of money involved, and the need to trace the defrauded funds, the court found no grounds to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.


Section 420., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860