Mumbai, Maharashtra – August 12, 2022 – A Mumbai Sessions Court has rejected the bail application of Ajaykumar Sitaram Nishad, accused of forgery and cheating involving fabricated documents from prestigious Indian institutions like RBI, Finance Ministry, DRDO, ISRO, and RAW. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar, denied bail citing the severity of the allegations and the potential for the accused to tamper with evidence.
Nishad was arrested in connection with Crime No. 1/2022, registered with DCB CID, Unit-VII, Mumbai (originally C.R. No. 9/2022 at Bhandup Police Station), under sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 120(b) (criminal conspiracy)1 read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code2 (IPC).
The prosecution alleged that Nishad, along with other co-accused, was involved in creating and using forged documents to cheat individuals. During the investigation, authorities seized digital evidence from Nishad’s mobile phone and a co-accused’s laptop, which included bogus documents, photographs, and PDF files related to high-profile central institutions.
Nishad’s advocate, Mr. Fazil Hussain Shaikh, argued that his client was falsely implicated and had no prior criminal record. He claimed that Nishad, a teacher from Jharkhand, had come to Mumbai in search of a job and was introduced to the co-accused by a person named Narayan. He asserted that Nishad was unaware of any fraudulent transactions and was arrested during a planned operation at a hotel.
The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijit Gondwal, strongly opposed the bail application. They highlighted the recovery of incriminating digital evidence, including forged documents related to sensitive institutions, indicating Nishad’s involvement in large-scale cheating. They also expressed concerns about Nishad absconding or tampering with evidence if released on bail.
Judge Joglekar, after reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, noted that Nishad had previously filed a similar bail application before the trial court, which was rejected. He observed that Nishad had failed to present any substantial change in circumstances since the trial court’s decision.
“At this juncture, it is not expected to conduct a rowing enquiry. On the contrary, what has to be located, is the prima-facie role of the applicant/accused, if any,” Judge Joglekar stated.
The court emphasized the gravity of the allegations, particularly Nishad’s involvement in forging documents related to high-profile central institutions. The judge also noted that the investigation revealed Nishad’s alleged involvement in cheating numerous individuals, with ongoing investigations.
Regarding the defense’s claim of parity with a co-accused who was granted bail, Judge Joglekar clarified that his predecessor had observed that the co-accused had no specific role assigned in the alleged crime.
“Thus, considering the records placed before myself, without stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that there is an active participation of applicant/accused in the present crime and therefore, I hold that the application deserves no consideration,” Judge Joglekar concluded.
The court rejected Nishad’s bail application, underscoring the seriousness of the offenses and the potential threat to the integrity of the ongoing investigation.