Mumbai, Dec 24: The Thane sessions court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Bijal Mukhi, estranged wife of Jay Mukhi, one of the accused in the 2016 Thane drug haul case involving actress Mamta Kulkarni. Jay has accused his wife and mother-in-law, Jasmine Adalja, of usurping his property worth Rs 2 crore without consent while he was in prison.
Accused claims property sold to repay business loan
Bijal had earlier stated that the property was sold only to repay a loan of around Rs 2 crore taken by Jay for his business. She claimed that Jay’s father’s property was given as collateral security.
It is alleged that after Jay’s arrest in the drug case, bank officials began harassing his father for repayment of the loan. Bijal further claimed that the loan proceeds were transferred to her father-in-law’s account, which was then used to settle the debt.
Court had earlier granted interim protection
Considering this, the court had earlier granted her interim protection from arrest, observing that “the element of cheating at the inception does not appear to be present at this stage.” Jay later submitted documents and arguments opposing the anticipatory bail plea. The plea was also opposed by the prosecution.
Investigation reveals sale proceeds used elsewhere
The court, after perusal of records and the reply from the investigating officer, noted, “It appears that during the course of preliminary investigation, the investigating officer has found that Bijal sold the company office located at Naupada, Thane, to one Kamlesh, who has further sold it to one Nilesh.
The investigation has further revealed that the proceeds of the sale were sent to the account of one Yogesh Lal, which was an adjustment of repayment of a loan of another company, Bhagyashri Exports.”
Court rejects defence claim on loan repayment
Hence, the court noted, “the contention of the applicants that the sale proceeds were utilised towards loan payment of company Infinity Logistics appears to be false.”
Conduct after father-in-law’s death questioned
“The complainant had come for ceremonial rites of his deceased father on January 31, 2018, but Bijal did not inform him anything regarding her intention to sell the company office. The resolution to make the applicant 2 (Adalja) as director was immediately passed on the next day. Hence, this circumstance also goes against the applicants,” the court noted.
Custodial interrogation held necessary
“This is a case where due and in-depth investigation is essential. The custodial interrogation of the applicants appears to be necessary for further investigation,” the court said while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea.
Also Watch:
Serious allegations require thorough probe, court says
“It clearly appears that there are serious allegations of forgery, misrepresentation and fraud on the part of the applicants. Such allegations are required to be duly investigated. For that purpose, the custodial interrogation of the applicants appears to be essential. Hence, the possibility of complicity of the applicants in the offence is required to be investigated, and grant of anticipatory bail would hamper such investigation, which is not permitted,” the court further said.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
