Mumbai: MPID Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Of Ahmedabad Advocate In Alleged MHIL Investment Fraud

A Mumbai MPID court has rejected Ahmedabad-based advocate Ruchita Kedia's anticipatory bail plea in an alleged investment fraud involving MHIL and Avishkar Buildcon. The court cited the recovery of a draft cancellation deed from her office and discrepancies involving her mobile phone, observing that custodial interrogation was necessary.

Add FPJ As a
Trusted Source
Mumbai: MPID Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Of Ahmedabad Advocate In Alleged MHIL Investment Fraud
Charul Shah Joshi Updated: Saturday, November 14, 2026, 05:15 AM IST
Mumbai: MPID Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Of Ahmedabad Advocate In Alleged MHIL Investment Fraud

New India Assurance has been directed to reimburse a policyholder for medically recommended bariatric surgery after wrongly rejecting her claim | Representational Image

Mumbai, November 13, 2026: The designated MPID court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to 45-year-old Ahmedabad-based advocate Ruchita Kedia, whose role is being probed in an alleged investment fraud involving M.H. Infraprojects Ltd (MHIL) and its sister concern, Avishkar Buildcon LLP.

Alleged Forged Cancellation Deed

According to the prosecution, the companies involved had allegedly mortgaged the property to another company in 2017, and it was still mortgaged as security for debenture money. It was also alleged that the accused had produced a forged cancellation deed.

In these transactions, Kedia, who worked as a legal consultant for Avishkar Buildcon, is alleged to have frequently sent a soft copy of the said cancellation deed through WhatsApp to the mobile phone of accused No. 3, Neel Thakkar, director of MHIL.

Kedia, however, while seeking anticipatory bail, claimed in her defence that she was neither the maker nor the signatory of the document and had merely forwarded it through her WhatsApp account.

Prosecution Questions Mobile Phone Evidence

The prosecution, on the other hand, opposed her plea and said the Sub-Registrar's office in Ahmedabad had confirmed that no such cancellation deed was registered there. It further alleged that the mobile phone produced by the advocate was not the one used to forward the document.

The court noted that a draft of the allegedly forged cancellation deed was recovered from the drawer of the advocate's office table during a search. It was also observed that she had submitted a different mobile handset to the investigating officer instead of the phone allegedly used to forward the document.

Also Watch:

Court Says Custodial Interrogation Necessary

Rejecting her plea, the court also observed that the advocate's custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain who prepared the forged document and where it was prepared. The court held that her conduct prima facie indicated complicity in the alleged offence and that she had not properly cooperated with the investigation.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Published on: Saturday, November 14, 2026, 05:15 AM IST

RECENT STORIES