Mumbai, April 2, 2024 – Smt. Meena Dattarya Jadhav has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in a multi-crore forgery and misappropriation case. Additional Sessions Judge V.M. Sundale (Court Room No. 27) issued the order on April 1, 2024.

Jadhav was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 707/2023, registered at the Mulund Police Station, for offenses under Sections 420 (cheating), 408 (criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document)¹ read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background and Allegations:

The complainant, Bangera Seaworld Pvt. Ltd., alleged that Jadhav and co-accused, who were employees, forged bills in collusion with suppliers and contractors, recovered additional amounts from them, and misappropriated Rs. 8,85,09,835.

Arguments Presented:

Advocate Prajit Manjrekar, representing Jadhav, argued that she was an employee of the complainant and her bank account was already frozen. He emphasized that the offenses were not exclusively punishable with capital punishment and that there were no criminal antecedents against her. He argued that her presence was not necessary for any recovery or discovery.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ramesh Siroya, representing the State, and Advocates Avishkar Sawant and Vinod Thekkera, representing the intervener (the complainant), opposed the bail. They argued that the offense was serious, the investigation was ongoing, and Jadhav was not cooperating. They expressed concerns about witness tampering and flight risk.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Sundale reviewed the record and submissions. He noted that Jadhav’s name and role were specifically mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR). He also noted that suppliers and contractors had transferred amounts of Rs. 1,09,998 and Rs. 89,840 to Jadhav’s account.

However, the court observed that the main allegations were against the co-accused, and Jadhav’s presence was not required for any recovery or discovery. The court also noted that there were no criminal antecedents against Jadhav.

Considering these factors, the court found that there were no extraordinary circumstances to keep Jadhav in custody during the remaining investigation. The court addressed the prosecution’s concerns by imposing conditions.

Bail Conditions:

Jadhav was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount. The following conditions were imposed:

• Jadhav and her surety must provide their mobile numbers, email addresses, and residence documents.
• Jadhav must not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or pressurize any person acquainted with the case.
• She must not leave India without prior permission from the court.
• She must attend the Mulund Police Station once a week (every Monday between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.) until the charge sheet is filed and cooperate with the investigation.
• Provisional cash bail of the same amount is allowed, and she must furnish surety within four weeks of release, failing which the cash bail will be forfeited.
• Breach of any condition will result in cancellation of bail.
• Bail to be furnished before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

Order Details:

The order was dictated on April 1, 2024, transcribed on April 2, 2024, and signed on April 2, 2024. The certified copy was uploaded on April 2, 2024, at 5:45 p.m.

This decision reflects the court’s consideration of Jadhav’s limited role, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the imposition of conditions to ensure her compliance with the legal process.