The Additional Sessions Judge of Thane, Suryakant Shinde, has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by advocate Himanshu Chandrakant Thanawala, accused in an alleged multi-crore fraud case involving allegations of forgery and misappropriation of family assets.

Thanawala is facing charges under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 467, 468, and 471 (forgery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with an FIR registered at with the police.

The case stems from a complaint filed by his mother, Niranjana Thanawala, on August 12, 2024. She alleged that her son fraudulently obtained her signature to open a joint account and allegedly misappropriated ₹73.19 lakh, returning only ₹36 lakh while issuing cheques for the remaining amount, which allegedly later bounced. A separate case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending in the JMFC Court, Thane regarding the alleged dishonored cheques.

Additionally, the complainant accused her son of allegedly illegally designating himself as a nominee for shares worth ₹36 crore invested in Share Khan Company and further allegedly forging her signatures to gain control over substantial bank deposits ranging from ₹7-8 crore.

The prosecution while opposing the ABA argued that his custodial interrogation was necessary to recover critical documents and investigate the alleged financial fraud, thereby presented prima facie evidence indicating that Thanawala had allegedly  forged documents to manipulate property and financial assets, including submitting alleged fraudulent letters to the Priya Building Society.

The defense, led by advocate Rajan Salunkhe, argued that the case stemmed from a family dispute over inheritance and that the accused had already relinquished his rights to disputed properties in favor of his brother Sukumar. The defense further contended that civil litigation regarding the inheritance was ongoing and that a parallel criminal case should not proceed simultaneously.

However, Judge Shinde rejected this argument, stating that the seriousness of the allegations, including forgery and misappropriation, could not be ignored. The court emphasised that merely transferring the disputed assets back to his mother did not absolve the accused of the crime.

The court observed, “ The allegations involve forgery, financial fraud, and misappropriation of assets totaling ₹36 crore. Thanawala allegedly forged his mother’s and sister’s signatures to manipulate family property and bank accounts. Also the matter goes beyond a civil family dispute, as criminal intent and forgery are involved.”

Considering these factors, the court ruled that Thanawala was not entitled to anticipatory bail.