Mumbai, April 6, 2022 – The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai today rejected the regular bail application of Md. Zallauddin S/o. Mohd. Tamizuddin, a 25-year-old lab technician accused in connection with a case involving the preparation of fake medical documents. The order, pronounced by Additional Sessions Judge Mr. Purushottam B. Jadhav in Court Room No. 22, comes in relation to Criminal Bail Application No. 688 of 2022, stemming from Crime No. 25 of 2022 registered at the Dadar Police Station.
The case revolves around allegations that Dr. Brijesh Gupta prepared a fake Electrocardiogram (ECG) document and procured a fraudulent Covid-19 test report from Thyrocare Lab while the first informant’s mother was admitted to a hospital between September 13, 2021, and September 15, 2021. Subsequently, the complainant’s mother had to undergo medical treatment at Symbiosis Hospital in Dadar (West). Based on this complaint, the police registered a case against the accused under Sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
During the hearing, Advocate Mr. Sunil Lalla, along with Mr. Raj Jagasia, representing the applicant, argued that the First Information Report (FIR) and remand applications did not specify any direct role of their client in the alleged crime. They pointed out that while the applicant’s name was listed as an accused in column No. 7 of the FIR and his occupation was mentioned as a Lab Technician, there was no concrete evidence presented initially to implicate him directly.
However, the prosecution, represented by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) Mr. J. N. Suryawanshi, strongly opposed the bail application. The prosecution highlighted that further investigation by the Investigating Officer revealed crucial evidence. The mobile phone of the applicant was seized, and it contained text messages and documents allegedly sent to other individuals involved in the case. The court noted that considering this development, it could not be definitively stated that the applicant had no involvement in the alleged offences.
A key argument against granting bail was raised by the State, citing the applicant’s lack of permanent residency in Mumbai, suggesting a potential risk of him not being available for the trial. The prosecution also informed the court that other accused individuals in the case are yet to be apprehended. While the court acknowledged these submissions, Judge Jadhav stated that these factors alone could not be grounds for rejecting the bail application.
Furthermore, the Learned A.P.P. expressed concerns about the possibility of the applicant tampering with witnesses, especially considering that the investigation was still in its initial stages. The court was also reminded that an earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the same applicant had been rejected by the court.
Adding a significant dimension to the case, the Learned A.P.P. submitted that after the registration of the FIR, the applicant allegedly attempted to bribe the first informant by transferring an amount of ₹5,000 via Google Pay. The court was informed that the first informant immediately re-transferred this amount. While the applicant’s advocate argued that there was no concrete material on record to prove that the applicant made this transfer, the court noted that one of the reasons for rejecting the anticipatory bail was the possibility of witness tampering, a finding that was not challenged by the applicant.
Acknowledging the defense’s plea for stringent conditions to be imposed if bail were granted and the provision for the police to seek cancellation of bail in case of any breach, Judge Jadhav ultimately sided with the prosecution. He opined that releasing the applicant at this stage of the investigation could impede the process of collecting crucial evidence, as there remained a possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses.
In his concluding order, Additional Sessions Judge Mr. Purushottam B. Jadhav stated, “Considering these facts, I am of the opinion that it would not be proper to release the applicant during the investigation.” Consequently, he passed the order rejecting Bail Application No. 688 of 2022.
The digitally signed order was issued on April 5, 2022, and was certified as a true and correct copy of the original signed judgment/order, uploaded on April 6, 2022, at 5:30 p.m. The name of the Stenographer was Ms. Bahushruta Y. Jambhale. The Pronouncement of Judgment/Order was on April 5, 2022, and the Judgment/Order was signed by the Presiding Officer on April 6, 2022, and uploaded on the same day.
This order underscores the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in cases involving serious allegations of forgery and cheating, especially when the investigation is ongoing and there are concerns about potential obstruction of justice. The rejection of bail will likely mean that Md. Zallauddin will remain in custody pending further investigation and potential trial in the matter.