Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail applications of Chandan Gohil, 50, and her son Dakshit Gohil, 29, accused of duping individuals of Rs 52.41 lakh under the guise of facilitating benefits from government schemes like oan Subsidy, Apang Yojana, and the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.
According to the prosecution, the Gohils persuaded one Bhavana Joshi and others to pay them money, promising benefits under the government schemes. However, the promised benefits were not delivered, and the funds were allegedly misappropriated.
Gohils’ Advocate Nikhil Wable argued that Chandan initially sought financial assistance to expand her saree business and was introduced to a third accused who facilitated a loan for her on commission. The third accused then explained a scheme to Chandan, promising her commissions for helping underprivileged individuals access government benefits. On these assurances, Chandan facilitated the process, earning commissions deposited in her and Dakshit’s bank accounts.
Joshi, also seeking financial aid, joined the scheme and introduced others to earn a commission. When banks demanded EMI payments, Joshi and the third accused shifted the blame onto Chandan. The defense claimed Gohils were victims of circumstances and had been falsely implicated, asserting that there was no evidence of inducement against them. They expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
However, State Advocate Supriya Kak and Joshi’s advocate counsel Abhinandan Waghmare argued that the crime was serious. They alleged that Chandan misled individuals and shared commissions with the third accused, with funds routed through Dakshit’s bank account. Eighteen victims have come forward, and the funds remain unrecovered. They emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the extent of the fraud and trace the money trail.
Justice RN Laddha noted that anticipatory bail must be granted cautiously, especially in serious cases, as it could hinder investigations. “Prima facie, the material on record indicates that the applicants (Gohils) received the invested funds through banking channels and cash transactions and benefited from them,” Justice Laddha said.
The judge noted that Gohils claimed to have been harassed and threatened by Joshi and the third accused, however, there is nothing on record to show that they sought legal recourse to address their grievance.
“In cases of this nature, the custodial interrogation becomes essential to unearth the fraud in all its facets and find the money trail. The possibility of there being similarly circumstanced additional victims is also imminent. Release of the applicants on pre-arrest bail would jeopardise the course of effective investigation,” Justice Laddha added while rejecting the pre-arrest bail.
