A Mumbai court rejected bail for the husband of an IPS officer in a Rs 24 crore cheating case, citing strong evidence of his involvement in a scheme promising discounted government properties.
A court here has once again denied bail to Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Rashmi Karandikar's husband Purushottam Chavan in a cheating case of over Rs 24 crore, noting that there was reasonable material on record that shows his involvement in the crime.
Chavan allegedly swindled victims out of approximately Rs 24.78 crore.
As per the probe agency, he lured them with false promises of providing plots and flats at low prices from government quota.
Chavan was arrested on May 20, 2025 and is currently in judicial custody.
The court had rejected his previous bail application in January this year.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Esplanade court) Abhijit Solapure last week dismissed Chavan's fresh bail application.
In the reasoned order, made available on Wednesday, the magistrate noted that the chargesheet and other documents on record "crystallise the role of the accused in this crime".
Chavan, through his lawyer, argued that keeping him in custody was unnecessary since the chargesheet had already been filed and documentary evidence was gathered.
He also sought bail on medical grounds and pointed to a bail granted to him recently by the Bombay High Court in a separate Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case.
The prosecution (Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai police) had opposed his plea contending that the offences involved are serious and the amount involved is huge.
Advocate Mohan Tekavde, appearing for the complainant, argued that the accused portrayed himself to be a government representative and lured the victims through false assurances of giving flats under the government quota.
He asserted that the accused has not only cheated the public at large but also caused substantial loss to the state by forging government documents through a systematic, well-planned conspiracy and a deliberate course of cheating and fraud.
The court, after hearing all the sides, was of the view that the accused cannot be granted bail only because the chargesheet has been filed.
There are other factors which are supposed to be taken into consideration, it said.
The court further ruled that the bail granted in the PMLA case was based on factual aspects not readily applicable to the current matter.
The court found substance in arguments that the accused might influence the witnesses and victims, which will create hindrance in the way of prosecution.
"There is reasonable amount of material on record which shows the involvement of this accused in the alleged crime," the court held, while rejecting his plea.