Revealed: How betting mafia lures and fixes you

Nikhil Jain, 27, was happily running a coffee shop in Juhu when he befriended Vandit Shah, a regular there, nearly three years ago. As their friendship blossomed, Vandit, then a student of Juhu’s Ritambara College, lured Nikhil into betting on cricket matches by painting him a rosy picture of the extravagant lifestyle that it would ensure. Vandit wore expensive clothes and drove fancy cars to prove his point.

Andheri-based businessman Nikhil fell into the trap and was soon immersed in debt because of the loans he took from bookies. His father rescued him then, but Nikhil says in March this year, he was abducted and made to sign on certain papers under duress. He was released only after he agreed to pay Rs20 lakh.
With the police refusing to register an FIR, Nikhil approached the Bombay high court last Friday. 

In his petition, Nikhil alleges that Vandit and his father Bharat lure victims to bet on matches. The gang provides money at an exorbitant rate to victims to pay the bookies in case they lose. However, they keep undated cheques of victims which are not returned even after repayment of the loan, the petition alleged.

The victims are threatened, kidnapped, pressurised to part with properties and even assaulted if they default on the payment.

“The police should find out how many more youth have been cheated in a similar manner,” said Ahmed Abdi, the petitioner’s lawyer. “The accused have an arrangement with the bookies, who provide funds through another person — who gives cash at a higher rate to the victims to repay the original lender. This chain goes on till the amount gets so huge that it becomes impossible to repay,” the complaint alleged. 

In response to Nikhil’s notice, Rajkumar Nadar, Vandit and Bharat’s lawyer, said the complainant took a friendly loan of Rs20 lakh for his business and that he is making baseless allegations, including that of kidnapping. Sub-inspector Ravi Jadhav of the MHB police station said: “The statements of both the parties were recorded then. It was a case in which one party had taken a loan from the other and there was a dispute over that.”