PNB Fraud Case: Special Court Rejects Bail For Nirav Modi's Close Associate Sandeep Mistry; Cites Risk Of Absconding During Trial

Mumbai, October 15, 2026: The special court has refused to grant bail to Nirav Modi’s close associate, Sandeep Mistry, observing that if he is released on bail, it would be difficult to secure his presence during the trial.

Mistry was recently extradited by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and produced before the special CBI court, which remanded him to judicial custody. While seeking bail, Mistry’s lawyer, Yusuf Iqbal, argued that the CBI had not sought his custody after his arrest and that he was sent directly to judicial custody.

Defence Cites Completed Investigation And Parity With Other Accused

It was contended that the investigation had already been completed and a charge sheet had been filed in 2019. The applicant was in Dubai, and his passport had been revoked. Hence, due to the restrictions, he could not come to India. Every accused in the case who had come to India had been released on bail, the defence argued.

The plea was opposed by CBI prosecutor Limosin A, who contended that a notice had been issued to Mistry on May 11, 2019, directing him to appear before the agency, but he failed to do so. Subsequently, a second notice was issued on September 11, 2019. After the charge sheet was filed, a warrant was also issued, but he failed to appear before the court.

“He was absconding for about 7 years after commission of the crime. Finally, he was extradited from Dubai (UAE) and arrested at Mumbai Airport on September 29,” the prosecution argued, adding that Mistry’s lawyer had assured the agency that he would join the investigation, but he never did.

Prosecution Alleges Role In Nirav Modi’s Companies

The prosecution claimed that Mistry was an employee of Modi and was staying in Dubai.

“He is shown as Director of various companies of Nirav Modi. He was controlling affairs of those companies of Nirav Modi in Dubai and Hong Kong. The CBI witnesses have stated about the involvement, role and destruction of evidence by the applicant in Dubai. He was in possession of 4 Million Rupees out of the fraud amount,” the prosecution argued, opposing Mistry’s bail.

Court Cites Risk Of Absconding

After hearing the arguments and perusing the records, the court observed that “the applicant-accused coordinated the preparation of false import/export documents used to show fictitious trade in diamonds, gold, and pearl jewellery between Dubai/Hong Kong companies and the above-named three accused Indian firms”.

“There is a strong prima-facie case and evidence against the present applicant. He has played an active role and has handled the affairs and even cash and hence, he is not entitled for the bail on the ground of parity,” the court said, adding that Mistry had not voluntarily returned to India but had come back under compelling circumstances through extradition.

Also Watch:

The court concluded that if Mistry were released on bail, it would be difficult to secure his presence during the trial.

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