Mumbai, July 21, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Judge Smt. C.V. Patil (Court Room No. 27) rejected the bail application of Ujwala Ravindra Vatharkar in connection with a job fraud case registered at Colaba Police Station (C.R. No. 22/2022). The court cited the applicant’s history of similar offenses, the ongoing investigation, and the risk of evidence tampering as reasons for denying bail.
Background of the Case:
Ujwala Ravindra Vatharkar, a 48-year-old housewife from Kolhapur, was arrested along with co-accused Arun Deshmukh for allegedly inducing individuals to pay them money in exchange for job opportunities. The complainants alleged that they paid money but did not receive the promised jobs. The case was registered under Sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 469 (forgery for purpose of harming reputation), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record),1 and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2
Arguments Presented:
Advocate Samay Pawar, representing Vatharkar, argued that his client was innocent and falsely implicated. He stated that she was ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Shankar Erande, representing the State, strongly opposed the bail application. He argued that the amount of money involved was substantial and yet to be recovered, that the applicant did not have a permanent residence, that similar cases were registered against her outside Maharashtra, and that the source of the forged appointment letters was still under investigation.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Patil, after reviewing the application, the State’s reply, and the remand report, noted that Vatharkar and Deshmukh were arrested on May 22, 2022. The court also noted that Rs. 1,00,000 had been recovered from Vatharkar during her police custody.
Regarding Vatharkar’s criminal antecedents, the court observed that while the State had primarily focused on Deshmukh’s criminal history, they had also mentioned three similar cases registered against Vatharkar in Kolhapur.
“But for the applicant/accused Ujwala Ravindra Vatharkar the IO also mentioned three crimes registered against her at Kolhapur police station,” Judge Patil stated in her order.
While Vatharkar’s advocate submitted bail orders from the Kolhapur court to show that she had been granted bail in those cases, Judge Patil emphasized the pattern of similar offenses.
“The modus operandi of the applicant/accused regarding commission of offence of similar kind shows that the ¾ offences of similar kind are registered against accused,” Judge Patil stated. “When the applicant/accused is released on bail by Kolhapur Court in the year 2016, but record disclosed that again the accused have committed offence ie. present offence after released from earlier offence.”
The court also considered the ongoing investigation and the risk of evidence tampering.
“At this stage from the record it shows that accused has criminal antecedents. As well as investigation is in progress. In such circumstances, tampering of the evidence cannot be ruled out if accused is released on bail,” Judge Patil stated.
Consequently, the court rejected the bail application of Ujwala Ravindra Vatharkar.
Implications and Significance:
This ruling highlights the court’s consideration of the accused’s criminal history, particularly when there is a pattern of similar offenses. The decision underscores that even if an accused has been granted bail in previous cases, bail can be denied in subsequent cases if there is a risk of recidivism and ongoing investigation.
The court’s concern about evidence tampering also reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that the investigation is not compromised while also considering the accused’s rights.
The order was dated July 18, 2022, and uploaded on July 21, 2022, at 5:50 p.m.