Court denied bail to dealer who sold property using forged documents

A Maharashtra court denied bail to property dealer Sainath Mhatre in a land-grab case involving forgery and a ₹15 crore money trail.

MUMBAI: A Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Sainath Kamlakar Mhatre, a property dealer from Borivali, in a land-grab and forgery case for allegedly playing a role in selling a Borivali property using fake documents while the owners were abroad.

Court denied bail to dealer who sold property using forged documents

During the hearing on Wednesday, special judge Vikram R. Jagdale rejected the bail, stating that the material on record indicated a deep-rooted conspiracy involving huge money and that custodial questioning was essential to trace forged records and the money trail.

The case stems from a case registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), which alleges that an ancestral land parcel at Valnai village in Borivali was illegally usurped by someone using fabricated deeds, forged government seals and stamps, and manipulated city survey entries. Subsequent investigation revealed that the accused forged documents to sell the property to private developers after the original owners died, with their legal heirs residing abroad. Although Mhatre was not named in the FIR, the court noted that his role emerged during the investigation when his bank account reflected multiple suspicious transactions related to the property deal. The court said it was necessary to probe the money trail of nearly ₹15 crore that was deposited in his account and how the amount was subsequently diverted.

Rejecting the defence argument that custodial interrogation was unwarranted, the court held that the absence of an immediate custodial need alone cannot justify anticipatory bail, citing several Supreme Court rulings in similar cases. Granting pre-arrest protection at this stage, the judge said, could hamper the probe and raise the risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation.

“At this early stage, if the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, then the possibility of tampering with the investigation, threatening and pressurising the witnesses cannot be ruled out,” the court said, adding that the allegations were serious and indicated an organised modus operandi.