File photo – High court.(With Akhef’s story) Aurangabad,TOI,Photo by Snehil Sakhare
The case, initially registered in 2015 and now being tried before the special CBI court in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, pertains to alleged tampering of mortgage documents submitted to Union Bank of India and Bank of Maharashtra. They also cited a one-time settlement of Rs 25.5 crore and pointed to the delay in registration of the FIR. 3 and 4 had already been rejected. Supreme Court had subsequently dismissed a special leave petition filed by one of those accused on September 12, 2022.
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court has refused to discharge Arvind Dilip Patil Nilangekar, brother of BJP MLA and former minister Sambhaji Patil Nilangekar, and Ashish Marwah, the Nilangekars’ brother-in-law, in an alleged Rs 40-crore bank loan fraud case, holding that the material collected by the prosecution raises a “grave suspicion” against them and warrants a full-fledged trial. The accused argued that they had no role in tampering with documents that were in the custody of the sub-registrar’s office. They contended that there was no evidence of any meeting of minds to establish a criminal conspiracy. The court further observed that questions relating to delay in lodging the FIR and alleged false implication are matters to be tested during trial and cannot be grounds for discharge at this stage. the court noted that the CBI relied on statements of valuers and bank officials indicating that he had submitted property documents for valuation and had accompanied a valuer during a site inspection While examining Arvind Patil Nilangekar’s role. In Marwah’s case, the prosecution relied on his position as managing director and an input form describing the security offered against the loan. The court observed that whether these circumstances establish their knowledge of or involvement in the alleged offences can only be determined during trial.
Justice Sushil M Ghodeswar dismissed the revision applications filed by the two accused challenging separate orders of the special court at Latur, which had earlier rejected their discharge pleas. High court also noted that discharge pleas filed earlier by accused Nos.