Mumbai, January 31, 2024 – In a ruling that emphasized the ongoing investigation and the potential for evidence tampering, the Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne (Court Room No. 30) denied bail to Santosh Anant Patil in connection with a job fraud case registered at DCB CID Unit No. 12, Mumbai (C.R. No. 85/2023, corresponding to C.R. No. 945/2023 at Kandivali Police Station). The court highlighted the seriousness of the allegations and the need for further investigation.
Background of the Case:
Santosh Anant Patil, a 41-year-old resident of Worli, was arrested on December 27, 2023, for allegedly defrauding Supriya Sarwankar and her son Sagar by promising a government job in exchange for Rs. 500,000. The case was registered under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating),1 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of2 the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Arguments Presented:
Advocate Kailash Rathod, representing Patil, argued that his client was falsely implicated and had fully cooperated with the investigation. He emphasized that Patil had deep roots in society, had undergone custodial interrogation, and that nothing was to be recovered from him. He argued that there was no reason to keep Patil in custody until the conclusion of the trial.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Iqbal Solkar, representing the State, opposed the bail application. He argued that Patil’s release would affect the collection of evidence, that there was substantial material against him, and that he might flee from justice, threaten witnesses, or tamper with evidence.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Sasne, after reviewing the application and the prosecution’s reply, detailed the allegations against Patil. He noted that Patil had allegedly induced the complainant and her son to pay Rs. 500,000 for a government job, fabricated a job offer letter from Indian Railways, and arranged a false training session.
“In short, the informant, her son Sagar were induced by the accused to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for securing government job,” Judge Sasne stated in his order. “The accused fabricated the job offer letter of Indian Railways. He also asked the informant’s son to attend the false training.”
The court also considered that Patil had been recently arrested and that the investigation was still in progress, with the prosecution investigating the forged letter and false training.
“Charge-sheet is not yet filed. Recovery is pending,” Judge Sasne noted. “If the accused at this initial stage is released on bail, he will tamper with the prosecution evidence.”
The court also dismissed the judgments presented by the applicant’s lawyer, stating that they were not applicable in this current situation.
Consequently, the court rejected Patil’s bail application, citing the ongoing investigation and the potential for evidence tampering.
Implications and Significance:
This ruling highlights the court’s emphasis on the progress of the investigation and the potential for evidence tampering in bail matters. The decision underscores that when the investigation is ongoing and there is a risk of the accused influencing the process, bail can be denied.
The case also demonstrates the court’s consideration of the seriousness of the alleged offenses and the need to protect the integrity of the investigation.
The order was dictated on January 25, 2024, transcribed on January 29, 2024, signed on January 30, 2024, and uploaded on January 31, 2024, at 5:43 p.m.