Mumbai, March 22, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has denied bail to Anthony Paul, accused in an international drug trafficking and cheating case. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, presiding over Court Room No. 30, rejected Paul’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 365 of 2024), citing his vital role in the alleged offenses and the potential for him to tamper with evidence and flee from justice.

Paul was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 41/2023, registered with DCB CID Unit-10, for offenses under sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery¹ of valuable security, will, etc.), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 385 (putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion),² 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offense, or giving false information to screen offender), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal³ Code (IPC), as well as sections 23, 24, 8(B)(i)(A), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, Paul and co-accused Rajesh Damodhar Bobhate induced several individuals, including Crisen Parera, Rushikesh Pandya, Ken Rodriges, Cletan Rodgries, and Monisha Demelo, with promises of jobs in Dubai. They arranged for their travel to Sharjah but failed to provide the promised jobs. They also provided forged return air tickets and handed over mementos/trophies and cakes containing narcotics substances. The victims were subsequently arrested in Sharjah, and the accused allegedly demanded large sums of money for their release.

Defense Arguments:

Paul, through his advocate Aniket Tawade, argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated. He emphasized that the investigation was completed and that he was a permanent resident of his given address.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Iqbal Solkar, opposed the bail application. They argued that Paul’s release would pose a flight risk and that he might threaten witnesses and tamper with evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Sasne, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:

• Vital Role: The court highlighted Paul’s vital role in sending the victims to Sharjah and implicating them in drug offenses.
• Phone Call to Sharjah: The court noted that Paul allegedly made a phone call to Sharjah authorities, informing them that the victims were carrying narcotics.
• Narcotics in Cake and Trophy: The court acknowledged the prosecution’s claim that Paul was involved in handing over cakes and trophies containing narcotics to the victims.
• International Racket: The court considered the prosecution’s suspicion of an international racket behind the crime.
• Mobile Phone Evidence: The court acknowledged the prosecution’s claim that Paul’s mobile phone was used in the offense.
• Previous Bail Rejection: The court noted that Paul’s previous bail application was rejected when the charge sheet was pending.
• Evidence from Witnesses: The court referenced statements from various witnesses, including Amit Chheda, Akshay Naik, Vijay Ahir, Bablu Modi, and Melesa Cristo, which implicated Paul in the offenses.
• Extortion Attempts: The court noted that Paul allegedly demanded large sums of money from the victims’ families for their release.
• Co-Accused Bail Rejection: The court noted that the bail application of co-accused Rajesh was also rejected.

Judge Sasne concluded that Paul played a vital role in the commission of the offenses and that his release would pose a risk of him tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, and fleeing from justice.

Order:

The court rejected Paul’s bail application.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• The seriousness of international drug trafficking and cheating offenses.
• The importance of considering the accused’s role in the alleged offenses.
• The potential for the accused to tamper with evidence and flee from justice.
• The courts consideration of witness statements, and electronic evidence.
• The courts consideration of previous bail rejections.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly in cases involving serious allegations and potential risks to the investigation and witnesses.