Mumbai, February 29, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Vishal Sarichand Rathod, accused of impersonating a National Investigation Agency (NIA) officer. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, presiding over Court Room No. 30, allowed Rathod’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 314 of 2024), citing the recovery of the forged identity card and the completion of custodial interrogation.

Rathod was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 37/2024, registered at Dadar Railway Police Station, for offenses under sections 170 (personating a public servant), 419 (cheating by personation), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of the Indian¹ Penal Code (IPC), as well as section 147 (trespassing on railways) of the Indian Railways Act.

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, on January 10, 2024, Amit Thakur, a Railway Traveling Ticket Inspector, was checking tickets at Dadar railway station. Rathod, who was traveling on a train, alighted at the station. When asked for his ticket, Rathod claimed to be an NIA officer. When asked for identification, he presented a photocopy of an NIA identity card, which was later found to be forged.

Defense Arguments:

Rathod, through his advocate Arun Mokal, argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated. He highlighted that he had been in custody since January 10, 2024, had fully cooperated with the investigating officer, and had undergone custodial interrogation. He emphasized that nothing remained to be seized or recovered from him 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 Rathod’s release would affect the collection of evidence, that there was material evidence against him, that he might flee from justice, 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:

• Recovery of Forged ID: The court noted that the forged identity card had already been recovered.
• Completed Interrogation: The court observed that Rathod had undergone custodial interrogation, and further interrogation for verification of the identity card was unnecessary.
• Length of Custody: The court considered that Rathod had been in custody for over a month.
• Pending Cases: The court stated that the pendency of other cases could not be a ground for rejecting bail unless the accused was convicted in those cases.
• Presence Assurance: The court believed that Rathod’s presence could be secured by imposing reasonable conditions.

Judge Sasne concluded that Rathod was entitled to bail subject to conditions.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Rathod bail on the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Bond (P.B.) and Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹25,000 with one or two sureties.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses and evidence.
• He must regularly attend the concerned police station every Saturday between 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM until the charge sheet is filed.
• Provisional cash bail of the same amount was allowed, with the condition that he must furnish surety within four weeks, failing which the cash bail would be forfeited.
• He must not leave India without prior court permission.
• Bail must be furnished before the concerned Magistrate.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Recovery of Evidence: The court considered the recovery of the forged identity card as a significant factor.
• Completed Interrogation: The court considered the completion of custodial interrogation.
• 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.
• 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 considering bail applications, particularly when the primary evidence has been recovered and conditions can be imposed to mitigate potential risks.