Mumbai Sessions Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Satara Doctor in Investment Fraud Case Involving Husband; Notes No Direct Role In Scam

Mumbai: The sessions court has granted anticipatory bail to a 35-year-old doctor from Satara in an investment fraud case, stating that her failure to explain transactions in her account does not amount to non-cooperation.

Dr Yugandhara Suresh Kale is under investigation by the Economic Offences Wing in a case registered against her husband, Vikram Kale, who has been arrested for allegedly cheating several investors by promising high returns on stock market investments.

As per the FIR filed at RAK Marg police, investors initially received returns for a few months, but the payouts eventually stopped. The police alleged that Dr Kale was involved as funds had been transferred to her account. The prosecution said she failed to explain agreements with four investors and a Rs9 lakh transfer from her husband during the relevant period.

Dr Kale argued that she never received the amount mentioned in the agreements and that the funds were both transferred and later reversed by her husband, who was operating her account. She stated that after discovering the fraud, she filed a non-cognisable complaint against him on September 7, 2023. She also claimed he had harassed her and forced her to sign documents under false pretences.

The court noted that aside from an allegation that she accompanied her husband while soliciting investments, no specific role was attributed to her. It also observed that the agreement amounts were not deposited directly into her account.

“Bank statements show various transfers by Vikram into her account, most of which were reversed to his own account. This indicates her account was used for routing investor funds,” the court said. It also noted that she had filed a complaint against Vikram before the current case.

The court added that she responded to police notices and gave her statement, showing cooperation. “Opposing bail without citing specific grounds for arrest or custodial interrogation is unjustified. Not explaining account transactions alone doesn’t prove non-cooperation,” the court concluded.