Former Vasai-Virar corporator denied bail in ₹37 crore Achole land-grab and money laundering case

A court denied bail to former corporator Sitaram Gupta in a ₹37.23 crore land-grab case, citing evidence of money laundering and illegal activities.

MUMBAI: A special court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on Wednesday refused bail to Sitaram Gupta, a former Vasai–Virar corporator from the Bahujan Vikas Aghadi party, in connection with a ₹37.23 crore land-grab case linked to illegal constructions in Achole.

Former Vasai-Virar corporator denied bail in ₹37 crore Achole land-grab and money laundering case

Special judge RB Rote observed that there was “sufficient material” to prima facie establish Gupta’s involvement in an alleged racket involving illegal land-grab, unauthorised construction and money laundering, which ultimately led to the demolition of 41 buildings in Achole last year. The court held that Gupta had failed to satisfy the stringent “twin conditions” for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.

According to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Gupta and his nephew Arun Gupta illegally occupied nearly 60 acres of land in Achole between 2006 and 2011, including plots reserved for a sewage treatment plant and a dumping ground. The agency alleged that the duo developed unauthorised residential and commercial structures through dummy builders and forged documents, and laundered the proceeds through cash transactions, benami arrangements and bribery payments to officials.

The court noted that the ED had attributed proceeds of crime worth ₹37.23 crore to Gupta. Investigators had also seized ₹45 lakh in cash from his residence and attached properties worth over ₹22 crore.

Rejecting Gupta’s argument that there was no evidence linking him to proceeds of crime, the court said, “There is sufficient material collected by the ED to prima-facie show that the applicant is guilty of the offence of money laundering.”

The judge further observed that Gupta “has encroached on government land and private land, sold the land in plots and in connivance with other accused and builders, constructed illegal buildings on the said land and generated proceeds of crime”.

Referring to the demolition drive carried out pursuant to directions of the Bombay High Court, the court highlighted its human impact, observing that “near about 2,500 families have become homeless due to the illegal activity of the accused”.

The ED case arises from multiple FIRs registered between 2019 and 2025 concerning alleged illegal constructions on CIDCO-reserved land in Achole, Vasai-Virar. According to the prosecution, builders and developers, in connivance with local officials, constructed 41 unauthorised buildings and sold flats despite knowing that the structures lacked approvals and were liable to demolition.

The order also refers to allegations that Gupta, a former corporator associated with the Bahujan Vikas Aghadi, and his nephew “grabbed” land earmarked for public utilities and sold plots using “fake ownership documents”. The court reproduced the ED’s allegation that officials of the Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation (VVCMC) operated a “rate card system” for bribes in exchange for permissions and protection from demolition action.

The ED further claimed that Gupta, in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, admitted that he and Arun Gupta were aware that the land was reserved for public purposes, but still proceeded to clear, plot and sell it. The agency alleged that the exercise generated around ₹15 crore, “most of the amounts of which, was received in cash”.

Gupta, meanwhile, argued that he had been falsely implicated and that there was no direct evidence against him regarding forgery or money laundering. He also contended that his arrest violated safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court despite his cooperation with the investigation.

The court, however, rejected the challenge to the legality of his arrest, holding that the arrest memo, grounds of arrest and “reasons to believe” had been duly furnished in compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA.

On the defence argument that Gupta was linked to only one predicate FIR, the court said, “Merely because the applicant is not named in the other FIR, it cannot be said that the applicant has no concern with the predicate offence or the offence of money laundering.”

The court concluded that Gupta was “actively involved in the predicate offence as well as in the activities connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property”.