Mumbai, March 25 A special court in Mumbai has denied bail to Pune businessman Amit Thepade in a ₹117-crore money laundering case, ruling that economic offenses are "a serious threat to the financial health of the country."
The court emphasized that statements recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) provided a "formidable case" against the accused.
There is "sufficient material" connecting Thepade, who was arrested seven months ago, to the offense of money laundering, special PMLA court judge R B Rote noted while rejecting the businessman's bail plea on March 20.
The judge noted that economic offenses are "a serious threat to the financial health of the country."
Thepade, director and promoter of Galaxy Construction and Contractors Pvt Ltd (GCCPL) and Mitsom Enterprises Pvt Ltd (MEPL), was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on August 24, 2025.
The ED case against him stemmed from a CBI First Information Report (FIR) filed in 2022, which alleged that Thepade and his associates used fraudulent means to obtain and enhance credit facilities for his companies from state-run Canara Bank in Pune.
Defence lawyer Mithilesh Mishra contended that the businessman had mortgaged immovable properties to obtain a loan and returned a part of the amount.
He argued that the loan sanctioned to the applicant had been secured and the dispute was essentially a civil matter regarding repayment.
The ED, represented by public prosecutor Arvind Aghav, contended that the accused had mortgaged the properties which had already been sold to third parties.
The prosecution pointed out that after the loan turned NPA (Non-Performing Asset) and the bank wanted to take possession of the mortgaged properties -- two flats -- it was revealed they were already sold to someone else.
The court, after considering the arguments, noted that Thepade had returned ₹26 crore towards interest over the credit facilities.
It, however, said "merely because the applicant has deposited certain amounts towards the interest, it does not mean that the applicant has been discharged from the criminal liability."
At this stage, there is no explanation in respect of the double mortgaging of flats, the judge underlined.
"Therefore, considering the gravity, seriousness and magnitude of the offense, the major role of the applicant and the interest of the society, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail," the court ruled.