16 May 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law  

Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Pawan Mutreja, a real estate agent, in connection with a cheating and conspiracy case registered at Vile Parle Police Station. Mutreja, along with two co-accused, is alleged to have defrauded a restaurant owner of Rs. 82 lakhs by promising to facilitate the transfer of his restaurant's ownership through illicit payments to BMC officials.

According to the prosecution, Mutreja conspired with co-accused Paresh Shah and Prakash Vyas to induce the complainant, Jayprakash Suru Shetty, to pay Rs. 50 lakhs via bank transfer and Rs. 32 lakhs in cash. Investigation reveals that substantial portions of these amounts, specifically Rs. 9.5 lakhs by bank transfer and Rs. 9.24 lakhs in cash, were directly received by Mutreja from the co-accused and the complainant, respectively, and subsequently deposited into his personal bank account. The prosecution further alleges that Mutreja initiated contact with the complainant, offering assistance in the ownership transfer and rent reduction.

Mutreja, through his counsel, vehemently denied the allegations, claiming he was framed and that the amounts received were a loan from co-accused Prakash Vyas, partially used for his mother's cancer treatment. He stated that his involvement with the complainant was solely to find a buyer for the restaurant after a dispute with BMC. However, the court found his claims of a loan to be "doubtful and an afterthought" due to a lack of supporting documentation.

The court also took note of Mutreja's conduct during the proceedings, particularly his attempt to withdraw the application after extensive arguments, which the court deemed "chance taking" and "not expected of a bonafide litigant."

Court's Reasons for Denial:

The court highlighted several key factors in its decision to deny anticipatory bail:

• Prima Facie Evidence: The court found prima facie evidence linking Mutreja to the scheme, noting undisputed transfers of funds to his account and WhatsApp chats indicating his awareness and involvement in the transaction.
• Absconding Co-accused: One co-accused is currently absconding, raising concerns about Mutreja's potential to flee.
• Criminal Antecedents: Mutreja has six prior criminal complaints, primarily involving similar offenses like cheating, suggesting a "similar modus operandi of habitually entering into such dubious transactions." The court stated that granting bail would be a "travesty of justice" given his history.
• Dubious Medical Records: The medical reports submitted for his mother's urgent surgery were deemed unreliable, with suspected overwriting to falsely indicate urgency.
• Attempt to Influence Witnesses: A voice recording of Mutreja demanding money from the complainant's daughter for bribing BMC officials was presented, indicating an attempt to influence witnesses.
• Non-Cooperation with Investigation: The prosecution consistently stated that Mutreja had not cooperated with the investigation and was not found at his stated address.
• Importance of Custodial Interrogation: Citing Supreme Court judgments, the court emphasized that custodial interrogation is crucial for unearthing the truth in conspiracy cases, even if direct evidence is available. It noted that granting anticipatory bail would "stall or prevent" effective investigation.

The court concluded that allowing anticipatory bail would impede the investigation and potentially lead to further victimization, given the complainant, a 76-year-old senior citizen, had lost his savings.

Order:

The Anticipatory Bail Application and all pending Interim Applications were rejected.