Mumbai, May 10, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Vinaykumar @ Ravishankar @ Rahul Goyal, accused in a cheating and forgery case. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, presiding over Court Room No. 30, allowed Goyal’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 1096 of 2024), citing the principle of parity with co-accused who were previously granted bail.

Goyal was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 61/2020, registered with DCB CID Unit-6 (corresponding to C.R. No. 61/20, Vile Parle Police Station), for offenses under sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document¹ or electronic record), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), and² 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).³

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, Rajendra Mandvia, an LIC agent, was defrauded by individuals posing as insurance policy providers. Mandvia surrendered his policies and received ₹18,02,922, but ₹2,87,000 remained unpaid. The accused then allegedly induced Mandvia to deposit ₹3,88,10,988 into various bank accounts under the pretext of recovering the remaining amount. Goyal allegedly created forged PAN cards and election cards to open bank accounts used in the fraud.

Defense Arguments:

Goyal, through his advocate Roshni Singh, argued that he was falsely implicated and had undergone custodial interrogation. The charge sheet was filed, and he was the sole earning member of his family. He emphasized that there were no criminal antecedents against him and that he was a permanent resident. He also cited the bail granted to co-accused Rajeshkumar Kashyap by the Sessions Court and Priyadarshi Gambhir by the Supreme Court, seeking parity.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Iqbal Solkar, opposed the bail application. They argued that Goyal’s release would lead to a flight risk, witness tampering, and evidence tampering.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

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

• Parity with Co-Accused: The court noted that co-accused Rajeshkumar Kashyap had been granted bail by the Sessions Court and Priyadarshi Gambhir by the Supreme Court.
• Role Attributed: The court observed that Goyal’s alleged role was primarily opening bank accounts using forged documents, and he received a commission for it. This role was considered lesser than Priyadarshi’s and comparable to Rajeshkumar Kashyap’s.
• Length of Custody: The court noted that Goyal had been in custody since October 30, 2020.
• Charge Sheet Filed: The court acknowledged that the charge sheet had been filed.

Judge Sasne concluded that, based on the principle of parity, Goyal was entitled to bail.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Goyal bail on the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Bond (P.B.) and Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹30,000 with one or more sureties.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses and evidence.
• He must attend all trial court hearings unless exempted.
• He must provide his contact number and current address to the investigating officer and inform them of any changes.
• He must not leave India without prior court permission.
• Bail must be furnished before the jurisdictional court.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Principle of Parity: The court applied the principle of parity, considering the bail granted to co-accused with similar roles.
• Role Attributed: The court considered the specific role attributed to the accused in the alleged offenses.
• Length of Custody: The court considered the length of the accused’s detention.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent any interference with the investigation.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly when applying the principle of parity in cases involving multiple accused.