Thane Sessions court denies anticipatory bail to former club manager in ₹38 lakh embezzlement case | Representative Image
Thane: The Additional Sessions Court in Thane has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Wahed Sajed Deshmukh, a former manager of the Golden Swan Country Club, who is accused of embezzling Rs 38.02 lakh from the club by diverting customer payments into his personal bank accounts.
The bail application was dismissed after the court noted that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary to aid further investigation.
According to the FIR registered by Vartaknagar Police Station, the complainant Ayush Sheri Bhatiya, owner of the club located in Yeur, accused Deshmukh of allegedly siphoning off funds received from customers for marriage and other events.
Instead of depositing the money into the club’s official account, Deshmukh allegedly transferred it to his personal accounts at Kotak Mahindra Bank, State Bank of India, and Axis Bank, using various methods including several online transactions as well cash collection.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, stating that the accused had also transferred Rs 1.5 lakh from a customer, Sameer Thanawala, to his own account and had used Rs 32,500 for booking personal flight tickets from Mumbai to Jaipur. They argued that the total misappropriated amount from seven customers amounted to Rs 38,02,400, and custodial interrogation was essential to recover the defrauded amount and collect further evidence.
Deshmukh, through his advocate, claimed innocence and argued that all transactions at the club were conducted online and were traceable. He maintained that he did not have the authority or access to manipulate the hotel’s accounting systems and was ready to cooperate with the investigation.
Judge G.T. Pawar, after hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the material on record, observed that there was a prima facie case against the applicant. “The accused appears to have misappropriated a significant amount by taking advantage of his position,” the court noted. “Custodial interrogation is necessary for uncovering the complete trail of misappropriated funds.”
The court ruled: “Considering the role of the applicant, the amount involved, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.”
