Mumbai, March 1, 2024 – Md. Hasanna Jarar Hussain Khan, accused of defrauding unemployed individuals of ₹1.08 crore through a fake job scheme, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire allowed Khan’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 315 of 2024), imposing stringent conditions due to the scale of the alleged fraud.
Khan was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 528 of 2023, registered at Bhandup Police Station, for offenses punishable under sections 405 (criminal breach of trust), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 409 (criminal breach of trust by1 public servant, or banker, merchant or agent), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)2 and 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).3
Prosecution’s Case:
The prosecution alleged that Khan, the owner and managing director of M/s. Parlex Pvt. Ltd., conspired with eight others to defraud unemployed individuals by publishing fake job advertisements in newspapers. They allegedly collected ₹4,000 from each person for I-cards, uniforms, and other requirements, promising them jobs that never materialized. The total amount misappropriated was alleged to be ₹1.08 crore.
Defense Arguments:
Khan’s advocate, Pramod Kumbhar, argued that the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed. He emphasized that Khan had been in custody since August 25, 2023, and that the remaining co-accused were yet to be arrested. He also raised general grounds for bail.
Prosecution’s Objections:
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), S.V. Kekanis, vehemently opposed the bail, stating that Khan was a history-sheeter with multiple economic crime cases registered against him. He argued that Khan and his accomplices had lured unemployed individuals with false promises of jobs and misappropriated crores of rupees. He emphasized that Khan was the owner and managing director of the company and the beneficiary of the defrauded amount.
Court’s Decision:
Judge Tapkire noted that the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed. He also noted that some co-accused had been granted pre-arrest bail or regular bail. However, he acknowledged the serious allegations against Khan, including the large amount of money involved and the numerous victims.
Considering the scale of the alleged fraud and the potential time it would take to conclude the trial, the court decided to grant Khan bail, subject to stringent conditions.
Conditions of Bail:
Judge Tapkire granted Khan bail on the following conditions:
- He must execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹10,00,000 and furnish one or two solvent sureties of the same amount.
- He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
- He must report to Bhandup Police Station on the 5th of every month until the conclusion of the trial.
- He must attend every trial date without fail.
- He must not engage in any criminal activity.
- He must not leave India without prior permission from the trial court.
- He must submit his residential address proof and contact details to the police.
- He must comply with surety requirements before the trial court.
- Copies of the order must be sent to the trial court and Bhandup Police Station.
Significance of the Order:
This order highlights the court’s consideration of the following factors when granting bail in large-scale economic crime cases:
- Completion of Investigation: The court considered the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet.
- Scale of the Fraud: The court acknowledged the large amount of money involved and the numerous victims.
- Potential Delay in Trial: The court recognized the potential time it would take to conclude the trial.
- Stringent Conditions: The court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the accused’s presence during the trial and prevent any further criminal activity.
The decision reflects the court’s balancing act between the rights of the accused and the need to protect the interests of the victims and the integrity of the judicial process.