Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail in Rs.60 Crore Financial Fraud Case

Serious Economic Offences Prompt Court to Reject Anticipatory Bail for Accused in Windsor Hill Project Fraud

In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, presided over by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, denied anticipatory bail to Ankit Ranjan, an accused in a massive Rs.60 crore financial fraud case linked to the Windsor Hill project at Gwalior. The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, which involve systematic misappropriation, deep-rooted conspiracy, and creation of shell companies to siphon funds.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Rajeev Shrivastava, Director of Esotech C.P. Infrastructure, alleging that co-accused individuals sold flats and plots without depositing the proceeds with the company. The fraud reportedly involved systematic fund siphoning and layering, with substantial amounts being diverted through complex financial transactions.

Counsel for the applicant argued that Ankit Ranjan was falsely implicated, asserting his non-involvement in the management or financial transactions of the Windsor Hill project. Despite these claims, the prosecution maintained that Ranjan played a crucial role in facilitating undervalued sales and subsequent resales at higher prices, depriving the company of its rightful income.

The investigation revealed substantial deposits in the accused's bank accounts, followed by immediate transfers to entities associated with co-accused Manoj Shrivastava. The prosecution alleged that shell companies and forged documents were used to mask the fraudulent transactions, pointing to Ranjan's active participation in the conspiracy.

Justice Phadke highlighted the societal impact of such economic offences and the necessity of a thorough investigation. With several co-accused absconding and the investigation ongoing, the court expressed concern that granting bail might hinder the probe, influence witnesses, or lead to evidence tampering.

The court firmly rejected the argument that the case was purely civil, noting the criminal intent and premeditated conspiracy involved. It underscored the distinct nature of economic offences, which require cautious judicial scrutiny due to their magnitude and ramifications.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the bail application lacked merit, thereby dismissing it in the interest of justice and fair investigation.

Bottom Line:

Economic offences involving large-scale financial fraud and conspiracy require a cautious approach while considering bail applications, given their societal impact and the need for thorough investigation.

Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Sections 406, 420, 409, 120-B of IPC, Sections 166, 188-B of the Company Act

Ankit Ranjan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Gwalior) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2822868