Vishwajeet Jadhav, husband of Nikita Shetty, the owner of Pune’s renowned Vaishali hotel, was granted bail by the sessions court in connection with the cheating and forgery case.
As per the information provided, Nikita has accused her husband and in-laws of harassment and forcefully obtaining the hotel’s power of attorney at gunpoint.
As a result of her complaint, the Shivaji Nagar police have registered an FIR against four individuals, including Vishwajeet Jadhav (38), Abhijeet (40), Vinayakrao, and Vaishali (60), who are his brother-in-law, father-in-law, and mother-in-law respectively.
As per the information received, the complainant was allegedly forced to consume drugs and liquor and was physically and mentally tortured by her husband and in-laws on a regular basis after their marriage, according to the FIR.
Additionally, she claimed that the accused threatened her at gunpoint and transferred the power of attorney of the hotel to his name.
Additionally, he then allegedly sold four cars without her permission, which were in the name of the complainant’s company, and also sold her gold jewellry worth Rs1.70 crore. As a result of the complaint, the Shivajinagar police filed an FIR under sections 420, 406, 498 (A), 323, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
During the court proceedings, Jadhav was represented by Advocate Pushkar Durge who argued that Jadhav and his brother were national players in shooting and had knowledge regarding ballistic science. Durge further argued that nothing was found regarding firing and that the incident had occurred on December 6, 2022, while the house search panchanama was done after six to seven months.
In response to the threat allegations, the defence lawyer submitted Google Time Line for the date which prima facie showed that none of the accused was present at the Ghole Road house on the relevant day and relevant time where the incident took place. The Additional Sessions Judge V.A.Patravale granted bail to Vishwajeet stating that there was documentary evidence to counter each allegation and that custodial detention was not seen necessary in such circumstances.