MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail of a couple accused of diverting money from a housing loan and misusing public funds. The court said the case reflects a “well-planned act of cheating and criminal breach of trust”.
The two accused, Suryakant Golapkar and Preeti Golapkar, had taken a ₹23.08 lakh housing loan in 2017 from GIC Housing Finance Limited, to buy a City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) flat. However, according to GIC Finance, the couple then diverted those funds, and bought other properties using fake documents. Justice Amit Borkar dismissed their pre-arrest bail plea on October 16, noting that the allegations against the duo revealed a deliberate diversion of the loan.
GIC Finance then lodged a complaint in August 2023 at the Khandeshwar Police Station, and the two were booked under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The company told the court that the applicants got loans to purchase CIDCO flats but, after initial payments, stopped paying their EMIs (Equated Monthly Instalment).
When GIC inspected the matter, they found that the flats which the couple claimed to have purchased were occupied by others. An internal inquiry revealed that the couple had encashed the money from the loan and used it to buy other flats in collusion with other accused persons and some CIDCO officials. GIC told the court that the fraud had caused them a loss of ₹84,28,562 including the interest on the loan.
The Golapkars argued that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated. The couple told the court that they had applied for a CIDCO flat and when they were allotted one, they got a loan to pay for it. They claimed they had regularly paid their EMIs until the Covid-19 pandemic, and insisted that this was just a civil matter related to a loan default. Applying for anticipatory bail, the duo said they would cooperate with the investigation.
Rejecting the couple’s arguments, the court held that the allegations and preliminary findings revealed dishonest intention from the start. Justice Borkar said that the applicants, along with other accused, had fabricated documents to divert the loan–an act that was a serious financial offence rather than a civil dispute.
The court added that the misuse of loan funds which were intended strictly for CIDCO property purchases, was a criminal breach of trust and cheating. The bench also underlined that offences of this nature which affect a housing finance company that deals with public funds, can seriously impact the financial integrity of the accused.
The high court emphasised that the couple’s custodial interrogation was essential to trace the money trail, identify forged documents, and determine the involvement of other individuals, including possible public officials. The bench ruled that granting the duo pre-arrest protection could “hamper a fair and effective investigation.”
Citing the gravity of the offences, the organised nature of the alleged fraud, and the necessity of custodial investigation, the court dismissed both anticipatory bail applications.
The order added that even though the couple had assured the court they would cooperate with the investigation, a thorough custodial probe into the misuse of housing finance funds would still be required.