Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Bail Denied to Alleged Kingpin in Multi-Crore Fraud Case - Flight Risk: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA, denied bail to the primary accused, Manoj Patel, in a case involving allegations of cheating, fraud, and forgery. The judgment, pronounced on September 27, 2023, has attracted attention due to its implications for a series of similar cases across the country.

The case pertains to FIR No. 119/2021 registered at P.S. Barakhamba Road, Delhi, under Sections 406/409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that Manoj Patel, also known as Manoj Kumawat, played a central role in orchestrating a fraudulent scheme that induced thousands of individuals to invest in a company called 'BTC ADS PRO,' promising unrealistically high returns.

The prosecution further claimed that Patel, who portrayed himself as the India-Pacific head of BTC ADS PRO, organized seminars and events to lure investors into the fraudulent scheme. The company's operations included creating a website, distributing brochures, and opening multiple bank accounts to receive funds from gullible victims.

The judgment emphasized the severity of the allegations against Patel, stating that "the present applicant was actively involved in the commission of the crime, and the scheme to cheat the masses is his brainchild." It highlighted that Patel had a history of running similar schemes and had been involved in more than 35 such cases registered throughout India.

One of the critical aspects that influenced the court's decision was Patel's use of forged identity documents, including documents with different dates of birth, adding to the prosecution's concerns that he posed a flight risk.

Manoj Patel's bail application relied on legal precedents that consider factors such as the nature of the allegations, the likelihood of the accused attending trial, and the severity of the punishment. However, the court was not convinced by these arguments and noted that the prima facie involvement of Patel in the alleged offenses had been established.

The judgment cited the precedent set in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020), which emphasizes that bail should be considered based on several factors, including the nature of the accusation and the character of the accused.

In light of the extensive evidence presented by the prosecution and the potential threat posed by Patel's release, the Delhi High Court denied bail to the accused. The judgment has implications for similar cases involving fraudulent investment schemes and underscores the importance of preventing potential flight risks from evading the legal process.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2023   

MANOJ PATEL ALIAS MANOJ KUMAWAT vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Latest Legal News