Mumbai, February 28, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Vishal Narayan Gonbhare, accused in a job fraud case. Additional Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar, presiding over Court Room No. 58, allowed Gonbhare’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 396 of 2024), citing his limited role in the alleged offense and the completion of the investigation.

Gonbhare was arrested in connection with FIR No. 174 of 2023, registered at Dadar Police Station, for offenses under sections 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property),¹ read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of² the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, Gonbhare, in collusion with co-accused Sham Vithoba Khatkar, allegedly induced Supriya Shantaram Khapre (the complainant) and witnesses Vikas Khotamkar and Avinash Ghadshi to pay a total of ₹16,13,500 under the pretext of securing them jobs in Mantralaya (the Maharashtra state secretariat). Khatkar allegedly posed as a secretary in Mantralaya and provided forged ID cards, appointment letters, and other documents. Gonbhare, who is the complainant’s maternal brother, introduced Khatkar to her and the witnesses.

Defense Arguments:

Gonbhare, through his advocate Sunita Devgonde, claimed he was innocent and falsely implicated. He argued that the charge sheet had been filed, no money was transferred into his bank account, and his role was limited to introducing Khatkar. He asserted that he was not involved in forgery, was a victim himself, and nothing incriminating was recovered from him. He also emphasized that he was a permanent resident of Mumbai and the sole breadwinner for his family.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Pankaj Chavan, opposed the bail application. They argued that Gonbhare was actively involved in the offense, had accepted ₹1,60,000 in cash from the complainant, and had knowingly misrepresented Khatkar’s position. They also pointed out that similar offenses were registered against Gonbhare at Dahisar and Kopri Police Stations.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

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

• Limited Role: The court noted that the entire amount was transferred into Khatkar’s account, and Khatkar was primarily responsible for preparing forged documents.
• No Direct Benefit: The court observed that no money or incriminating articles were recovered from Gonbhare.
• Introduction Only: The court acknowledged that Gonbhare introduced Khatkar to the complainant and witnesses, but Khatkar himself presented forged documents to gain their trust.
• No Forgery Role: The court found no evidence attributing any role to Gonbhare in the forgery of documents.
• Completed Investigation: The court noted that the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed.
• Offense Severity: The court considered that, at most, the offense under section 420 (cheating) of the IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years, could be attributed to Gonbhare.
• Previous Offenses: The court acknowledged the prosecution’s claim of previous offenses but noted that two of them dated back to 2010-2011.

Judge Pawar concluded that Gonbhare’s further detention was unnecessary and granted him bail subject to conditions.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Gonbhare bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Bond (P.R.) of ₹30,000 and furnish one or two sureties of the same amount.
• He must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• He must not tamper with prosecution evidence.
• He must not commit similar offenses while on bail.
• He must not contact the complainant or witnesses personally or through anyone until the trial concludes.
• He must submit documents regarding his permanent address and contact details to the police station and the court and inform them of any changes.
• He must attend the trial regularly.
• Breach of any condition would lead to cancellation of bail.
• Provisional cash bail of ₹30,000 was allowed for six weeks.
• Bail must be furnished before the trial court.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Limited Role of Accused: The court considered the accused’s limited role in the alleged offense.
• Completed Investigation: The court considered the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent any interference with the investigation.
• Balancing Rights and Interests: The court balanced the rights of the accused with the interests of justice by granting bail subject to conditions.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly in cases involving multiple accused and when the accused’s involvement is limited.