Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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