The sessions court has rejected bail plea of 34-year-old Shivangi Mehta booked with her husband Ashesh Mehta for cheating several investors to the tune of Rs300 crore.
Shivangi and Ashesh were arrested by the Economics Offence Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police in December last week for allegedly cheating many investors from Surat. The couple also face a criminal charge in connection with narcotics seized by Madhya Pradesh Police in early-June last year.
While seeking bail, her lawyer Abad Aponda contended that to resume her career, she was shown as a director of operations with Bliss Consultants but never officially hired or authorised. She claimed that she herself was an investor with Bliss Consultants and has no concern with the proprietary firm.
Besides, Shivangi claimed that after the news about their suspected involvement in a narcotics case registered in Madhya Pradesh, investors panicked and started withdrawing their investments from Bliss Consultants.
It was argued that she was active in conducting operations of the financial institution. It is contended that the active role played by the applicant is titled as a help to her husband with a view to resume her career.
After hearing both sides, the court observed that the claim that she was not connected to her husband's firm is a washout. The court further said, “The accused had online business and thereby, many investors from other parts of the country might have been involved. Therefore, there is substance in the argument advanced by the intervenors that the scope of offence may increase in future.”
While refusing to grant her bail, the court said, “There is overwhelming evidence indicating the participation of applicant in a serious crime with a preplanned and well designed conspiracy nature of offence is very much serious as it being an economic offence involving huge financial scam. Punishment to the alleged charges leveled against the applicant is certainly severe. Grant of bail to the applicant can stall the investigation. In such circumstances, if the applicant would be released on bail, there is every possibility that she may flee away from justice and tamper with the prosecution evidence.”
