Mumbai, March 1, 2024: Vijay Danji Koli, accused of cheating a woman by selling her a non-existent property, has been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. The order, issued by Additional Sessions Judge N. P. Tribhuwan, comes in response to Criminal Bail Application No. 529 of 2024, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Koli was arrested in connection with Crime No. 386/2022, registered at Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Allegations and Prosecution’s Stance:

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, Jethi Ramji Chavan, intended to sell her SRA (Slum Rehabilitation Authority) allotted room to purchase a new one. She was introduced to Koli by Vinod Govind Bariya, who claimed Koli was the owner of a room in the same society. Koli then offered to sell a room in building B/04 for ₹37 lakh.

The complainant sold her room for ₹47 lakh and paid Koli a total of ₹37 lakh in installments between April and May 2021. However, Koli later became unreachable, and the complainant discovered that he was not the owner of the room and had been living in a rented space.

The prosecution argued that Koli had absconded, leading to a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC, and a charge sheet was filed under Section 299 of the CrPC. They also stated that ₹5 lakh was deposited into Koli’s bank account from the complainant’s husband’s account.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Observations:

Advocate S. M. Khan, representing Koli, argued that the transaction was an exchange of rooms, and Koli had only received ₹5 lakh from the complainant. He claimed that the FIR was filed 15 months after the alleged incident and that Koli had no connection with Vinod Bariya, suggesting that Bariya might have taken the money. He also stated that all documents were with the complainant and that Koli’s custody was not required.

Koli had previously filed an anticipatory bail application (ABA No. 2698/2023), which was rejected. Subsequently, he surrendered to the Metropolitan Magistrate and was placed in police custody.

Judge Tribhuwan, after reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, noted several crucial points:

• Delayed FIR: The FIR was filed a significant time after the alleged incident.
• Disputed Amount: The amount received by Koli was disputed.
• Absconding and Surrender: While Koli had absconded, leading to a proclamation, he later surrendered to the court.
• Completed Investigation: The charge sheet had been filed, and the investigation was complete.
• Lack of Criminal Antecedents: There were no reported criminal antecedents of the accused.

Judge Tribhuwan concluded that considering the facts of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the completion of the investigation, it was desirable to release Koli on bail with conditions.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted bail to Vijay Danji Koli with the following conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Bond of ₹50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• He must not tamper with any prosecution witnesses.
• He must not misuse his liberty.
• He must provide his detailed address and mobile number to the investigating officer and the court, and inform them of any changes.

Implications and Future Proceedings:

The granting of bail to Koli highlights the court’s consideration of the delayed FIR, the disputed amount, and the completion of the investigation. While the trial will proceed, and the prosecution will have the opportunity to present its evidence, the court’s decision underscores the balance between the presumption of innocence and the need to ensure the integrity of the legal process.