Mumbai, July 5, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Judge Vishal S. Gaike rejected the bail application of Sneha Rajendra Bansode, accused in a loan fraud case registered at Dadar Police Station. The court cited the overwhelming prima facie documentary proof of forged documents and the ongoing investigation as reasons for denying bail.
Bansode was arrested in connection with Crime No. 114 of 2018, registered under Sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine1 a forged document or electronic record) of the Indian Penal2 Code (IPC).
According to the complainant, in December 2017, Bansode applied for a personal loan of Rs. 2,86,680 from M/s. I.V.L. Finance Ltd. (Indiabulls Company). The loan was disbursed, but Bansode failed to pay the installments. Upon verification, it was discovered that she had submitted forged employment documents from Mazgaon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd.
Bansode, through her advocate Racheeta Dhuru, sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), arguing that she was innocent, had been made a scapegoat, and was ready to repay the loan amount. She also argued that the investigation was almost complete and that she was ready to cooperate.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ramesh Siroya, opposed the bail, citing prima facie documentary proof of forged documents and the possibility that Bansode might threaten witnesses if released.
Judge Gaike, after hearing both sides and reviewing the record, noted the following:
- The verification of the loan application and documents was carried out by Yogesh Agre of Paradox Services Ltd., who submitted a positive report regarding Bansode’s false employment claim.
- The loan was sanctioned based on this false verification report.
- Bansode refused to repay the loan and threatened the company representative.
- The investigation revealed that the bank statement submitted by the accused was also forged and fabricated.
- She had sent an email using a fake mazgaondocks.com domain.
“There is overwhelming prima facie documentary proof against the applicant on record at this stage. She is offering to pay back the loan amount obtained by her on the basis of documents submitted by her along with her loan application. But, in my opinion, her offer to pay back the loan amount, will not help her in any way at this stage when there is plenty of prima facie material against her on record. She has no explanation regarding the said forged documents of her employment. The investigation is in progress and it may get hampered due to release of applicant on bail, as there is possibility that she may threaten and pressurise the complainant and witnesses. There is also possibility that she may destroy the documentary evidence which may be still in her possession and there is also a possibility that she may flee away from justice.” Said Judge Gaike.
The court also expressed dissatisfaction with the investigating officer’s lack of action against those responsible for the false verification report. However, the court emphasized the overwhelming prima facie evidence against Bansode and the potential for her to tamper with evidence or witnesses if released.
Consequently, the court rejected Bansode’s bail application.
“Bail Application No.1570 of 2022 is hereby rejected and disposed off.” Judge Gaike ordered.
The order was dictated on July 5, 2022, transcribed on July 6, 2022, signed on July 7, 2022, and uploaded on the same day, as certified by stenographer Bahushruta Y. Jambhale.
This ruling highlights the judiciary’s approach in considering the strength of documentary evidence and the stage of investigation when deciding bail applications in fraud cases. It also underscores the court’s concern about potential witness tampering and the destruction of evidence.