The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench has rejected the pre-arrest bail application of Kalpana Kharat, wife of Nashik astrologer Ashok Kharat, in a cheating and illegal money lending case. The court held that the applicant suppressed material facts and attempted to misrepresent the court to obtain relief.
Case Background
Ashok Kharat, who faces multiple cases of rape, cheating, and offenses under the Black Magic Act, along with Kalpana and three others, is accused of duping a farmer from Rahata of his four acres of land at Nighoj, valued at approximately Rs 10 crore. The transaction was allegedly camouflaged as a registered sale deed while being a loan transaction.
Based on the farmer's complaint, the Shirdi police registered the case on March 31, 2026. Kalpana's whereabouts have been unknown since then, and the police have not been able to trace and arrest her. A sessions court in Rahata rejected her anticipatory bail plea on April 22, 2026, prompting her to move the High Court.
Court Observations
Justice R M Joshi, while rejecting the plea on June 10, observed that Kalpana had taken a specific stand before both the sessions court and the high court that she had no knowledge of the disputed transaction and was not a signatory to the sale deed executed in her favor by the complainant. However, the court noted that the power of attorney issued by her did not authorize the constituted attorney to execute the document but only to register it after execution by Kalpana and accused No. 1 (Ashok Kharat).
"There is prima facie evidence to indicate that the applicant herself has executed the sale deed in question. This court, therefore, finds substance in the contention of learned Public Prosecutor (Amarjitsinh Girase) that this is a case of suppression of facts and on that count alone, application deserves to be rejected," the bench said.
Suppression of Facts
The bench further stated: "Apart from the fact that there is suppression of material fact from this court and even the court is sought to be misrepresented by stating that the applicant is not a signatory to the sale-deed in question, there is other material on record in the form of entries from bank account of the applicant held by her individually. Thus, it cannot be said that the applicant had no knowledge with regard to the transaction in question."
Government pleader Girase relied on bank account entries showing payments of Rs 85 lakh through Kalpana's individual account to argue that she had full knowledge of the transaction.
