Mumbai Sessions Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Social Worker, 2 Others In ₹43.5 Lakh Extortion Case

Mumbai, July 7, 2026: The sessions court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a social worker and two of his associates booked on a complaint by Trans India Group Company for alleged extortion, observing that the accused may influence the investigation.

Three Seek Anticipatory Bail

Mandeep Singh Sahgal alias Ladi, a social activist, and two other accused, Dipak Sehgal and Jasvinder Maniktala alias Ganja, had moved the sessions court seeking anticipatory bail after they were booked by the Matunga police on the complaint of the manager of Trans India Group Company.

The complainant was deputed as the Site Manager for a project under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by Trans India Group Company. It is alleged that, from December 2023 until the registration of the FIR, the accused demanded extortion money from the complainant and his employer.

The complainant has claimed that the accused extorted Rs 28.50 lakh in cash from him and his employees and thereafter demanded an additional Rs 15 lakh, threatening that if the amount was not paid, they would permanently shut down the company's construction activities. They also allegedly threatened to eliminate them by shooting them.

Accused Deny Allegations

The applicants, however, contested the allegations and claimed that Mandeep is a social worker who has consistently raised grievances against the developer and initiated proceedings before various statutory authorities and courts, resulting in penal action against the developer.

They contended that the remaining applicants are relatives of Mandeep whose houses were illegally demolished by the developer under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. They claimed that the case was registered as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by them.

The prosecution, however, claimed that after registration of the FIR, the applicants and a co-accused allegedly contacted the complainant over the phone and threatened him to delete their names from the FIR.

The prosecution therefore contended that there exists a real possibility of the applicants influencing or intimidating the complainant and other prosecution witnesses if protected by anticipatory bail.

Also Watch:

Court Rejects Plea

The court, while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of the three accused, said: "Having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusations, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the specific stand taken by the investigating agency regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the allegations regarding attempts to influence the complainant even after registration of the FIR, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants have failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail."

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