The City Civil and Sessions Court of Greater Bombay has denied anticipatory bail to Harshad Maruti Dhumal, who is accused of defrauding a retired BPCL employee of ₹9 lakh by illegally selling his shares without consent. The case, registered under FIR No. 155/2024 at Kalachowki Police Station, involves charges under Sections 419 (Impersonation), 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery), 468 (Forgery for Purpose of Cheating), and 471 (Using Forged Documents) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.
The Alleged Fraud:
The informant, who retired from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) in 2021, held 4,000 shares valued at ₹9 lakh. To manage his shares, he enlisted SMIFS Ltd. as his stockbroker. The issue arose in March 2023, when the informant realized he was not receiving dividend payments and, upon inquiry, discovered that he no longer held the shares.
Upon confronting the stockbroker, the informant was told that the shares had been sold on his instructions. The informant, claiming he had never authorized the sale, filed a complaint, prompting the police to register the case.
Defense’s Arguments:
Harshad Dhumal, who was employed by SMIFS Ltd. and handled the informant’s Demat account, contended that all actions regarding the sale of shares were taken with the informant’s authorization. He maintained that the informant had signed a power of attorney, which allowed for the sale of shares, and the transactions were processed using a mobile application, for which the informant had access.
Dhumal also argued that his role was limited to handling the technical aspects of the Demat account and that any transactions carried out were initiated by the informant. Furthermore, he claimed that the proceeds from the share sale were transferred to the informant’s account, as evidenced by transaction records. The defense argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and requested pre-arrest bail.
Prosecution’s Stand:
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail, asserting that Dhumal had taken advantage of the informant’s lack of technical knowledge regarding stock trading apps. They argued that Dhumal had carried out the unauthorized sale of shares using the informant’s credentials, and the sale proceeds had not been transferred to the informant’s legitimate bank account. Instead, the prosecution claimed that Dhumal had manipulated the records and transferred the money to a fake account. They emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to trace the funds and fully investigate the extent of the fraud.
Court’s Decision:
Presiding Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar ruled that the case involved serious allegations and that the applicant had failed to provide clear answers about the destination of the proceeds from the sale of shares. The court noted that while Dhumal claimed the money was in the informant’s Demat account, there was no evidence of any transfer into the informant’s legitimate bank account. This, the court concluded, required further investigation and custodial interrogation of Dhumal.
The court also highlighted that the investigation was still in its early stages and that granting anticipatory bail at this point could hinder the inquiry. The judge ruled that Dhumal’s custodial interrogation was essential to uncover various aspects of the alleged crime and denied the anticipatory bail application.
Ongoing Investigation:
With the rejection of his anticipatory bail, Dhumal now faces the possibility of arrest as the investigation continues.
Leave a Reply