Supreme Court Orders Fresh Investigation in Case of Alleged Property Dispute and Fraud; Transfer Petition Disposed    |     Vague Allegations of Improper Cross-Examination Insufficient for Recalling Witnesses: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order    |     Honorable Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings Invalidates the Dismissal Based on Identical Allegations: Allahabad HC    |     Supreme Court Orders Fresh Selection for Punjab Laboratory Attendants; Eliminates Rural Area Marks    |     Entire Story of the Prosecution is a Piece of Fabrication: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in High-Profile Kidnapping Case    |     Madras High Court Overstepped in Directing Framing of Charges, Says Supreme Court; Stays Proceedings    |     Foreclosing Right to File Written Statement Without Serving Complaint Too Harsh: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Rash Driving Case; Compensation Reduced Due to Age and Health Factors    |     Prayers for Setting Aside Maintenance Order and Refund Not Maintainable Under Section 25(2) of Domestic Violence Act: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused on Grounds of Parity with Co-Accused and Prolonged Custody    |     Serious allegations of corruption demand thorough investigation Against Karnataka Bar Council Chairman:  Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash FIR    |     Probationers must be heard; a punitive action without inquiry is against natural justice: Punjab & Haryana HC Reinstates Judicial Officer    |     Refining Crude Soybean Oil is a Use of Goods Within the State, Attracting Entry Tax: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Overturned for Merely Better Views: Supreme Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeals Over Encroachment Claims Due to Improper Demarcation Report    |     Teasing by Children Cannot Be Considered Grave and Sudden Provocation Under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC: Gauhati High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Man Convicted of Murdering a 7-Year-Old Boy    |     ITC Blocking Under Rule 86A Cannot Exceed Available Balance in Electronic Credit Ledger: Delhi HC    |     Writ under Article 226 not maintainable when alternative remedies are available" – Delhi HC: Delhi HC Dismisses Writ Petition for FIR and Protection    |     Lack of Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Does Not Automatically Vitiate Proceedings: Calcutta HC    |     No Development Without Conveyance: Statutory Rights of Housing Society Prevail: Bombay High Court    |     Pecuniary Jurisdiction Based on Highest Valued Relief in Specific Performance Suit: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Delay in Sale Deed Registration After Full Payment Cannot Justify Denial of Auctioned Property: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Civil Judge Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear Suit Under Section 92 CPC; District Court is the Competent Forum: Allahabad High Court    |     Children are not only the assets of the parents but also of society: Kerala HC on Protests Involving Minors    |     A cheque issued as security does not represent a legally enforceable debt: Madras HC Acquits Accused in Cheque Bounce Case    |    

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.

Similar News