Mumbai, India – February 9, 2024 – Tulshidas Tatyaba Jadhav, accused of defrauding multiple individuals under the guise of providing government jobs, has been denied bail by a Mumbai Sessions Court. Additional Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar, presiding over Court Room No. 58, rejected Jadhav’s bail application in Criminal Bail Application No. 257 of 2024, citing his habitual involvement in similar offenses and the risk of him fleeing justice.
Jadhav is facing charges under Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with C.R. No. 225 of 2023 registered at Kurla Police Station.
The Alleged Fraud and Victims:
The case stems from a complaint filed by Vishal Rangnath Bandwalkar, who alleged that Jadhav promised him a government job and took Rs. 3 lakh from him, along with his original educational documents. Jadhav allegedly deceived Bandwalkar into signing documents stating the money was a business loan.
The prosecution further alleged that Jadhav collected a total of Rs. 30,62,000 from 17 individuals, including Bandwalkar, by promising them or their relatives government jobs. He also collected their original educational documents and then misappropriated the funds.
Defense Arguments:
Jadhav’s defense argued that he was innocent and that the transactions were of a civil nature. They claimed that he had issued post-dated cheques as security and that his bank accounts were frozen. They also asserted that he had been granted bail in similar cases and that the investigation was complete, with a charge sheet filed.
Prosecution Objections:
The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that Jadhav had cheated 17 people and had not cooperated with the investigation or the recovery of documents and funds. They also highlighted that Jadhav had a history of similar offenses and frequently changed his residence, posing a risk of flight and witness intimidation.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Pawar, after considering the arguments and evidence, rejected Jadhav’s bail application. The court noted that Jadhav had collected Rs. 30,60,000 from 17 individuals under the pretext of providing government jobs and had executed agreements showing the amounts as business loans.
“It is apparent that the applicant had promised the first informant and other 16 persons that he would secure Government job and for that purpose induced them to part with amounts as well as original educational documents,” Judge Pawar stated in his order.
The court also highlighted that Jadhav had nine similar offenses registered against him, indicating a pattern of habitual offenses. The court referred to bail orders from other cases, noting that Jadhav had defrauded even more people in those instances.
“The crimes registered against the applicant show that the applicant is habitual in commission of similar offences of cheating,” Judge Pawar observed.
The court rejected the defense’s argument that the trial would be lengthy, noting that the trial court had promptly framed charges and that witnesses were attending the proceedings. The court also dismissed Jadhav’s medical grounds for bail, stating that the medical documents indicated he had recovered.
“Though the offence invoked against the applicant is punishable with imprisonment upto seven years, considering his criminal antecedents showing tendency to repeat similar crimes and possibility of fleeing from justice, in my view this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant,” Judge Pawar concluded.
Implications:
This case highlights the court’s stringent approach towards habitual offenders, especially those involved in financial frauds. The court’s decision underscores the importance of considering the accused’s criminal history and the potential risk of flight when deciding on bail applications. The court also showed it was not swayed by the defense’s argument of delayed trials, when the court of first instance had shown efficiency in moving the case forward.