MUMBAI: A special CBI court has turned down the bail application of Sandeep Mistry, an alleged close associate of fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi, in the ₹ 6,498-crore Punjab National bank fraud case. The plea was rejected on grounds that Mistry had allegedly destroyed electronic evidence, operated dummy companies in Dubai and Hong Kong, and handled 4 million UAE dirhams allegedly meant for Modi.
Mistry was arrested at the Mumbai airport on September 29 after being detained in the UAE and brought back to India. The court relied on prosecution witness Ashish Kumar Lad’s statement that he had withdrawn around 4 million Arab Emirates Dirams in cash from accounts of 13 Dubai-based group companies on the instructions of Mihir Bhansali, another accused, and others. The money was allegedly with Lad for 12 days before he handed it to Mistry at the Dubai Airport Free Zone.
Mistry allegedly told Lad he would give the money to Modi. The court said Mistry allegedly managed dummy companies in Dubai and Hong Kong, coordinated the preparation of false import and export documents to portray fictitious trade in diamonds, gold and pearl jewellery, and issued instructions through communication systems called “panemail” and “crickinfo”, designed to automatically delete messages. On Thursday, Special Judge S K Karhale held that Mistry’s prolonged absence from India, his alleged involvement in the offence and the risk of evidence tampering weighed against his release.
Mistry’s lawyer argued that the investigation was complete, the chargesheet had been filed, his passport had been revoked and other accused who returned to India had secured bail. He also pointed out that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had not sought his custody after arrest. Rejecting Mistry’s plea, the judge observed that his return to India had been secured through coercive proceedings. The court also cited the risk of evidence destruction and witness tampering while rejecting his bail application.
“Thus the appearance of the applicant in this case is under compelling circumstances,” the court said, adding that “it would be difficult to secure his presence during the course of trial” if he were released.
