Let's talk: editor@tmv.in
IPS officer Rashmi Karandikar’s husband denied bail again in Rs 24.78 crore cheating case

IPS officer Rashmi Karandikar’s husband denied bail again in Rs 24.78 crore cheating case

Yekkirala Akshitha
March 6, 2026

A Mumbai court has once again denied bail to Purushottam Chavan, husband of IPS officer Rashmi Karandikar , in a Rs 24.78 crore cheating case , observing that there is substantial material on record indicating his involvement in the alleged fraud.

Chavan was arrested by the Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai Police on May 20, 2025, and has remained in judicial custody since May 2025 . The case relates to an alleged scheme in which he promised victims plots and flats at concessional rates under a fake government quota housing scheme .

Investigators say around 20 victims were cheated of Rs 24.78 crore after being lured with promises of obtaining residential properties at discounted rates. Authorities allege that Chavan claimed he could arrange plots and flats in cities such as Mumbai, Thane and Pune through special government allotments.

The prosecution further alleged that the accused projected himself as a government representative and used forged documents to convince investors that the deals were legitimate. According to the complainant’s counsel, the alleged fraud was carried out through a systematic and well-planned conspiracy that not only cheated members of the public but also caused losses to the state.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhijit Solapure of the Esplanade court dismissed Chavan’s fresh bail application last week. In the order made available on Wednesday, the magistrate noted that the chargesheet and other documents on record clearly “crystallise the role of the accused” in the crime.

Chavan’s lawyer argued that continued detention was unnecessary since the chargesheet had been filed and most evidence was documentary. The defence also cited bail granted in a separate PMLA case by the Bombay High Court.

However, the court held that the offences were serious and that releasing the accused could allow him to influence witnesses. Observing sufficient material linking him to the alleged fraud, the court rejected the bail plea.