Mumbai Court Rejects Medical Bail for Accused in INR 56 Crore Real Estate Fraud

A special court in Mumbai has denied medical bail to an accused in a real estate fraud case involving approximately INR 56 crore, holding that the medical condition cited does not warrant release from custody.

The case relates to alleged financial irregularities in a redevelopment project, where the accused, identified as a partner in a real estate venture, has been charged with cheating homebuyers by selling the same residential units to multiple purchasers and failing to deliver promised flats.

The accused had filed an application seeking temporary bail on medical grounds, stating that he suffers from a degenerative spinal condition requiring surgery. The defence argued that treatment at a private medical facility was necessary and that continued custody would adversely affect his health.

However, the prosecution opposed the plea, contending that the medical condition was not critical and that adequate treatment facilities were available at government hospitals. Representatives of affected homebuyers also opposed the application, raising concerns over the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact on the investigation.

The court, after reviewing medical reports and submissions, observed that grant of medical bail requires evidence of a serious or life-threatening condition that cannot be managed within the existing custodial healthcare framework. It held that such circumstances were not established in the present case.

Accordingly, the court ruled that the accused could continue to receive medical treatment at designated government hospitals while remaining in judicial custody. The judge also noted that the nature of the offence, involving alleged financial fraud and multiple victims, necessitates continued detention during the investigation and trial process.

The case is being examined under provisions related to economic offences, including allegations of cheating and breach of trust linked to redevelopment commitments. Investigating agencies have alleged that funds were collected from buyers without fulfilling contractual obligations, resulting in financial losses.

The decision reflects a broader judicial approach in economic offence cases, where courts have emphasised the need for custodial interrogation and caution in granting bail, particularly when allegations involve large sums and multiple stakeholders.

The matter will now proceed before the trial court, with further hearings expected to examine evidence related to project transactions, financial flows, and contractual obligations associated with the redevelopment scheme.