Court rejects anticipatory bail of advocate in forgery case | Mumbai News

A sessions court recently rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Ahmedabad-based advocate Ruchita Kedia, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary in a probe involving an allegedly forged cancellation deed used in a debenture-security transaction.

Mumbai: A sessions court recently rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Ahmedabad-based advocate Ruchita Kedia, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary in a probe involving an allegedly forged cancellation deed used in a debenture-security transaction. Additional sessions judge N G Shukla held that the material on record indicated Kedia’s prima facie complicity and that the case was not fit for grant of anticipatory bail.The case was related to a complaint by a legal representative of Beacon Trusteeship Company against directors of M H Infraprojects Ltd and others over alleged cheating, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and forgery. According to the prosecution, M H Infraprojects Ltd had allegedly offered a property as security for debentures despite it having been mortgaged earlier. Investigators claimed a forged registered cancellation deed was shown to suggest the earlier mortgage had been cancelled.Kedia, who was described as a legal consultant and in-house legal adviser of Avishkar Buildcon LLP, a sister concern of M H Infraprojects Ltd, came under the scanner after investigators found that a soft copy of the alleged forged deed had been sent from her WhatsApp to accused Neel Thakkar. Kedia’s lawyer argued that she was not a maker or signatory of the alleged forged document and had merely used WhatsApp logged in on a computer at the common office. He said she had cooperated with the investigation, appeared pursuant to notices and produced her mobile phone.The defence also argued that compelling Kedia to hand over material from her phone would violate her constitutional protection against self-incrimination. It submitted that the EOW had already seized the hard disk of the office computer and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The prosecution opposed the plea, saying Kedia had produced a different mobile handset from the one allegedly used to forward the document. It argued that her custody was required to find out who prepared the forged cancellation deed, where it was made and how she obtained its soft copy.