Court Denies Bail to Former MP Akhtar Hasan Rizvi in Fraud Case

Court's Decision on Bail Application

On July 27 in Mumbai, a local court rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of former Rajya Sabha member Akhtar Hasan Rizvi in a case involving alleged fraud and forgery. The court indicated that there is substantial evidence suggesting his deep involvement in the crime. Additional Sessions Judge Mahesh Jadhav stated that the petitioner is the primary accused, and interrogation in custody is essential.

Details of the Allegations

Rizvi, a businessman, faces charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for fraud and forgery. He is accused of exploiting the illiteracy of the complainant's family to create false and forged property documents with the intent to deceive. According to police reports, the actual owner of the property, Hajani Noorbi Bai Kalu, passed away on April 26, 1971.

Claims of Property Misappropriation

It is alleged that after Kalu's death, Rizvi introduced another woman who signed the property deed in place of the deceased. Rizvi's attorney argued that the 84-year-old former MP is a respected individual with no criminal history. The defense contended that he would often sign blank papers for charitable purposes, which were then misused by his employee to manipulate the documents.

Arguments from Both Sides

The lawyer asserted that Rizvi had no criminal intent, did not gain any wrongful advantage, and was preparing documents to return the property to the heirs of the deceased. However, the prosecution opposed his bail application, claiming that Rizvi had prepared a registered document with malicious intent and acknowledged his signature on it. They emphasized the need for detailed questioning in custody to identify the woman he presented as the deceased owner and to investigate potential involvement of revenue officials.

Court's Findings

After reviewing the documents, the court concluded that it appeared Rizvi had successfully registered his name on the disputed property based on a deed. The court dismissed the bail application, stating, “If the petitioner were to receive bail before arrest, he would undoubtedly influence the prosecution's witnesses. He is the main accused and is deeply involved in the crime. Custodial interrogation is necessary.”