Mumbai, February 1, 2024: The City Civil & Sessions Court in Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Aarif Ajmuddin Patel, an accused in a multi-crore fraud and forgery case, citing concerns over tampering with evidence and potential absconding. The decision was delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar in Court Room No. 37 on January 30, 2024.
Case Background
The case, registered under C.R. No. 421/2023 at Matunga Police Station, involves multiple accused allegedly conspiring to defraud the complainant of Rs. 1,95,68,000. The accused reportedly deceived the complainant by falsely promising the transfer of a liquor license and benefits from the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) in Navi Mumbai. Furthermore, they allegedly assured the complainant of exoneration from an ongoing criminal case. When the complainant demanded the return of his money, he was allegedly threatened at gunpoint.
The accused, including Ali Raza Shaikh, Jay @ Raju Manglani, Valmik Goler, Vijay Nadar, and Vikrant D. Sonawane, were said to have executed the fraud in a coordinated manner. Aarif Ajmuddin Patel was allegedly involved in the forgery of a PAN card used to gain the complainant’s trust. The prosecution has charged the accused under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged documents), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Arguments Presented in Court
Defense Counsel’s Argument:
Representing Patel, Advocate Anil Kamble argued that his client was falsely implicated and that the case was primarily document-based. He contended that:
- Patel was not the author of any forged documents.
- The allegations did not substantiate charges under Sections 406 or 420 of IPC.
- The complainant never entrusted money directly to Patel.
- The charge sheet had been filed, and no further recoveries needed to be made.
- The arrest of Patel violated Section 41A(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), as the notice and arrest occurred on the same day.
Based on these points, the defense sought Patel’s release on bail.
Prosecution’s Counter:
Opposing the bail, Additional Public Prosecutor Abhijeet Gondwal emphasized that Patel had a direct role in the crime. The prosecution argued:
- Patel played a key part by using forged PAN cards to assume a false identity as Vikrant Sonawane.
- The money fraudulently obtained had not been recovered.
- The case involved a larger criminal racket, and Patel’s custodial presence was crucial for further investigation.
- Patel had a history of using forged identities, increasing the likelihood of tampering with evidence and absconding.
An intervener also supported the prosecution’s stance, highlighting that filing a charge sheet alone did not justify bail and referring to legal precedents that uphold bail denials in similar fraud cases.
Court’s Observations and Verdict
After examining the evidence, Judge Dr. Joglekar noted that:
- The accused had not denied receiving a notice under Section 41A(1) of Cr.P.C.
- The investigating officer had discovered several forged PAN cards linked to Patel.
- Patel had a history of assuming false identities, increasing concerns about witness tampering and evasion of legal proceedings.
- Granting bail at this stage would hinder the ongoing investigation into the alleged criminal racket.
Taking these factors into account, the court rejected Patel’s bail application, stating that the risk of obstruction of justice outweighed the grounds presented by the defense.
Legal Implications and Future Course
This case highlights the judiciary’s stringent stance on financial frauds involving identity manipulation. Given the court’s findings, Patel and his legal team may explore alternative legal remedies, including filing an appeal in a higher court.
The prosecution, meanwhile, is expected to continue its investigation into the larger fraud network and track the missing funds. With the case still unfolding, authorities will likely intensify their efforts to uncover additional evidence and apprehend any other individuals involved in the racket.
Conclusion
The Mumbai court’s refusal to grant bail in this high-stakes fraud and forgery case underlines the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law. As the investigation progresses, the outcome of further legal proceedings will determine the fate of the accused and the extent of their criminal liabilities.
