Mumbai, March 4 A court here has once again denied bail to Purushottam Chavan, the husband of Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Rashmi Karandikar, in a fraud case involving over Rs 24 crore, noting that there was sufficient evidence to show his involvement in the crime.
Chavan is accused of defrauding victims out of approximately Rs 24.78 crore.
According to the investigating agency, he lured them with false promises of providing plots and flats at low prices from government schemes.
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 dismissed Chavan's fresh bail application last week.
In the reasoned order, made available on Wednesday, the magistrate noted that the chargesheet and other documents on record "clearly establish the accused's role 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 had been gathered.
He also sought bail on medical grounds, citing a recent bail granted to him by the Bombay High Court in a separate Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case.
The prosecution (Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai police) opposed his plea, arguing that the offences involved are serious and the amount involved is substantial.
Advocate Mohan Tekavde, representing the complainant, argued that the accused portrayed himself as a government representative and lured the victims through false assurances of providing flats under the government scheme.
He asserted that the accused not only defrauded the public but also caused substantial loss to the state by forging government documents through a systematic, well-planned conspiracy and a deliberate course of fraud.
The court, after hearing all the sides, was of the view that the accused cannot be granted bail simply because the chargesheet has been filed.
It said that there are other factors that need to be considered.
The court further ruled that the bail granted in the PMLA case was based on factual aspects that are not readily applicable to the current matter.
The court found merit in the arguments that the accused might influence the witnesses and victims, which would hinder the prosecution's efforts.
"There is sufficient evidence on record to show the involvement of this accused in the alleged crime," the court stated, while rejecting his plea.