Mumbai Court Denies Bail to Social Worker in Matunga Extortion Case
On July 7, 2026, the Mumbai Sessions Court denied anticipatory bail to a social worker and his two associates accused of extorting Rs 28.50 lakh and demanding an additional Rs 15 lakh from a construction company's site manager in Matunga.
The accused, identified as social activist Mandeep Singh Sahgal alias Ladi, Dipak Sehgal, and Jasvinder Maniktala alias Ganja, had approached the court seeking pre-arrest bail. The three were booked by the Matunga police following a complaint by the site manager of Trans India Group Company, who was overseeing a project under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
According to the complainant, the accused allegedly demanded extortion money from him and his employer from December 2023 until the registration of the First Information Report (FIR). The site manager claimed that the trio extorted Rs 28.50 lakh in cash from him and his employees.
The complainant further alleged that the accused subsequently demanded an additional Rs 15 lakh. They reportedly threatened to permanently shut down the company's construction activities and shoot the employees if the money was not paid.
In court, the applicants denied the allegations. Sahgal contended that he is a social worker who has consistently raised grievances against the developer, leading to penal action by statutory authorities and courts. The remaining two applicants claimed to be Sahgal's relatives whose houses were illegally demolished by the developer under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, arguing the extortion case was a retaliatory move.
However, the prosecution opposed the bail, stating that after the FIR was registered, the applicants and a co-accused contacted the complainant by phone to threaten him into deleting their names from the case. The prosecution argued that the accused posed a real threat of influencing or intimidating witnesses if granted protection.
Rejecting the anticipatory bail plea, the Mumbai Sessions Court noted the gravity of the accusations, the need for custodial interrogation, and the allegations of post-FIR threats. The court ruled that the applicants failed to make a case for pre-arrest bail.
