Mumbai Court Denies Bail to Former Lodha Developers Director Rajendra Lodha
On July 6, the Mumbai Sessions Court in Mumbai denied bail to Rajendra Lodha, the former director of Lodha Developers Ltd. (LDL), who was arrested by the Mumbai Police for his alleged involvement in a Rs 181-crore cheating case. The court rejected the bail application citing the ongoing investigation and the potential risk of the accused influencing key witnesses.
Lodha had sought bail on the grounds of innocence, claiming he was falsely implicated in the case. His defense submitted that the prosecution's case relies entirely on documentary evidence and lacks material showing criminal intent.
The defense further argued that Lodha's actions were fully authorized by resolutions passed by the company's Board of Directors. They also raised concerns over his health, noting that Lodha suffers from serious ailments, including diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hypertension, and has previously undergone bypass surgery. Additionally, the defense argued that since approximately 80 witnesses have been cited, the trial is unlikely to begin soon, making his continued incarceration equivalent to pre-trial punishment.
The prosecution and senior counsel Pranav Badheka, representing the complainant, strongly opposed the bail plea. Badheka argued that Lodha was the principal architect of a well-planned conspiracy spanning over a decade. He alleged that Lodha abused his authority to dishonestly alienate lands belonging to the complainant company.
According to the prosecution, the current estimated financial loss stands at over Rs 181 crore, and this figure is expected to rise as the investigation progresses.
In its ruling, the Mumbai Sessions Court highlighted the gravity of the accusations. The court observed that the material collected during the investigation prima facie indicates that Lodha, while holding a fiduciary position as a director, abused his authority by engaging in unauthorized transactions involving the company's valuable immovable properties in conspiracy with co-accused individuals.
The court concluded that given the nature and gravity of the charges, the massive scale of the alleged financial loss, Lodha's pivotal role in the conspiracy, and the risk of witness tampering, the period of incarceration alone was not sufficient reason to grant bail at this stage.
