Mumbai, February 29, 2024: The Sessions Court of Greater Bombay has granted bail to Mohammed Najim Mohammed Shabbir Manihar, a 45-year-old businessman accused of involvement in a job fraud case. The accused was arrested on January 7, 2024, in connection with C.R. No. 01/2024, registered with DCB CID, Unit-VIII, Mumbai, which corresponds to C.R. No. 19/2024 at Azad Maidan Police Station. The charges against him include multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy.

Case Background

The prosecution alleges that the accused and his associates lured job seekers by promising employment opportunities in Singapore. According to the complaint filed by informant Akhtar Sirajuddin Khan, the accused’s agency collected money from him and several other individuals under false pretenses. However, after receiving the payments, the agency ceased operations, leading to allegations of fraud.

Prosecution’s Stand

The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that releasing the accused could hinder the investigation. They contended that his release might lead to tampering with evidence and potential threats to witnesses. Additionally, the prosecution emphasized that the accused could abscond if granted bail.

Defense’s Argument

Advocate Ajay Dubey, representing the accused, argued that his client was falsely implicated in the case and had a limited role. He pointed out that the accused’s involvement was confined to pasting advertisement handbills and that he had no direct participation in the alleged fraud. Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the accused had already undergone custodial interrogation and that nothing remained to be recovered from him.

Court’s Decision

After considering the arguments from both sides, Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne granted bail to the accused on February 23, 2024. The court acknowledged that the accused’s role was limited to advertising the agency and that further incarceration was unnecessary. However, the court imposed strict conditions to ensure his cooperation with the investigation:

1. The accused must furnish a personal bond and surety bond of Rs. 25,000.
2. He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
3. He is required to visit the concerned police station on the 2nd and 4th Saturday of every month between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. until the charge sheet is filed.
4. He cannot leave India without prior court approval.
5. The court allowed provisional cash bail, which must be replaced with a surety bond within four weeks. Failure to do so will result in the forfeiture of the cash bail.
6. The bail will be executed before the concerned magistrate.

Conclusion

The decision to grant bail was based on the assessment that the accused played a minor role in the alleged fraud. While the investigation into the broader case continues, the court’s order ensures that the accused remains available for further proceedings. This case highlights the ongoing efforts of law enforcement agencies in tackling employment fraud and protecting job seekers from exploitation.

The bail order was signed by Judge Sasne on February 28, 2024, and officially uploaded on February 29, 2024.