Mumbai, January 31, 2024: A Mumbai Sessions Court has rejected the bail application of Santosh Anant Patil, who was arrested for allegedly defrauding a woman of Rs. 5 lakh under the pretext of securing a government job for her son. The court ruled that releasing the accused at this stage could lead to tampering with evidence, as the investigation is still ongoing.
Case Background
According to the prosecution, the complainant, Supriya Sarwankar, met the accused when her husband was admitted to a hospital where Patil was employed. Patil allegedly assured her that he could secure a government job for her son, Sagar, in exchange for Rs. 5 lakh.
Sarwankar paid Rs. 4 lakh in cash on November 26, 2018, followed by a Rs. 1 lakh cheque on December 11, 2018. The accused then introduced her to Prakash Sadaphule, an employee of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), and Sagar was asked to undergo medical examinations at Rajawadi Hospital. However, no job materialized.
Later, Patil allegedly promised the complainant that another person, Bharat Waghela, would facilitate the job. Sagar was then taken for further medical examinations at Sion Hospital and Balasaheb Hospital in early 2021. Despite these procedures, no appointment was made.
The alleged fraud continued when Patil introduced the complainant to Rohit Erkar in June 2021, claiming that Sagar had secured a job as a Ticket Collector (T.C.) in the Indian Railways. The complainant received an offer letter purportedly signed by the Chief Personnel Officer of Northern Railway, Delhi, bearing official seals. Sagar was then asked to undergo a one-month training program in Noida and subsequently instructed to work at Bandra Railway Station, recording train numbers and timings.
However, when Sagar and his mother inquired about his employment status, they discovered that the offer letter was forged and that he was never officially hired by the railways. Realizing they had been deceived, the complainant lodged a police report, leading to Patil’s arrest on December 27, 2023.
Court’s Observations
Patil applied for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that he was falsely implicated and had already cooperated with the investigation. His lawyer, Advocate Kailash Rathod, contended that Patil had deep roots in society and that there was no need for his continued detention since the alleged offenses were primarily document-related.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Iqbal Solkar, opposed the bail plea, asserting that Patil’s release could hamper the collection of crucial evidence and allow him to influence witnesses. The prosecution emphasized that the investigation into the forged railway documents and fraudulent training sessions was still ongoing, and certain recoveries were yet to be made.
Judge Rajesh A. Sasne of the Mumbai Sessions Court ruled that given the nature of the allegations and the stage of the investigation, granting bail could pose a risk to the integrity of the case. The court also noted that charge-sheeting was pending and emphasized the potential for witness intimidation and evidence tampering if the accused were released.
Legal Precedents Cited
Patil’s defense relied on legal precedents, including the Supreme Court rulings in Bhimrao S/o Arjun Panchal v. State of Maharashtra, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., and Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. However, the court found these judgments inapplicable to the present case, as the circumstances differed significantly. The court noted that the cited cases involved either delayed complaints, post-investigation scenarios, or conviction appeals, whereas the current matter was at a preliminary stage with ongoing inquiries.
Final Verdict
Considering the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, the court dismissed Bail Application No. 62/2024 on January 25, 2024. The order was signed on January 30, 2024, and uploaded on January 31, 2024.
The case continues to unfold, with further investigations expected to determine the full extent of the alleged fraud and potential involvement of additional accused individuals.