Mumbai, Maharashtra – June 2, 2022 – Jayesh Ramesh Kolambkar’s bail application has been rejected by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in a multi-million rupee fraud case. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Deepak L. Bhagwat, denied bail, citing Kolambkar’s active involvement in the alleged crimes and the serious nature of the offenses.
Kolambkar was arrested in connection with Crime No. 557 of 2021, registered at the Vikhroli Police Station, and was charged under sections 420 (cheating), 384 (extortion), 170 (personating a public servant), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 500 (defamation), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation), read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of1 the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that Kolambkar and his accomplices defrauded the complainant of Rs. 93,17,251 by falsely promising to secure bail for her husband in multiple cases, including one under the Maharashtra Organized Crime Control Act (MCOCA). They misrepresented themselves as police and CBI officers, claiming the money was for bribes to judges and police officers. The accused also allegedly extorted money by threatening the complainant with legal action for attempting to bribe officials.
Applicant’s Arguments for Bail:
Adv. Mhaske, representing Kolambkar, argued that his client’s involvement was limited to receiving Rs. 2,75,000 in his bank account. Kolambkar had reportedly requested the bank to trace the source of the funds and subsequently asked for the amount to be re-transmitted. The defense also highlighted the absence of any prior criminal record.
Prosecution’s Objections:
Smt. Seema Deshpande, representing the State, argued that Kolambkar had withdrawn the money from his account via ATM. She emphasized the seriousness of the offenses and the ongoing investigation, stating that a supplementary charge sheet was yet to be filed against Kolambkar.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Judge Bhagwat rejected the defense’s claim that Kolambkar’s role was limited to the bank transaction. The court cited evidence indicating Kolambkar’s active participation, including his presence during the handover of gold ornaments and his involvement in discussions regarding their pledging. The court emphasized the gravity of the offenses, noting that the accused had not only defrauded the complainant but also defamed the judiciary and police by claiming to bribe officials.
The court highlighted the existence of prima facie evidence against Kolambkar, the seriousness of the offenses, the ongoing investigation, and the likelihood of Kolambkar influencing witnesses. Given these factors, the court deemed it inappropriate to grant bail.
Outcome:
The court’s decision underscores the severity of the alleged offenses and Kolambkar’s active involvement in them. The denial of bail reflects the court’s concern about the potential for witness tampering and the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The court’s emphasis on the reputational damage caused to the justice system highlights the broader implications of the alleged crimes.