The Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Rupesh Vasant Patil, a 38-year-old former clerk of the Fire Department, accused of orchestrating a fraudulent fireman recruitment scheme within the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The case, registered under FIR No. 381/2024 at Agripada Police Station, involves charges of forgery and fraud under Sections 420, 465, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
The Allegations:
The prosecution alleges that Patil, along with his co-accused, created a fake fireman recruitment scheme, deceiving multiple candidates by issuing fraudulent appointment letters in the name of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Patil, who was employed as a head clerk in the Fire Department’s recruitment section, allegedly took advantage of his position to manipulate the recruitment process and pocketed significant illegal profits from unsuspecting candidates. The total amount of money fraudulently collected by Patil and his accomplices from innocent victims amounts to ₹23 lakhs.
Defense’s Argument:
Patil’s counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case and that the allegations lacked specific details. They claimed that the forged recruitment letters had already been handed over to the investigating agency, and therefore, his custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Patil’s legal team also contended that the inquiry was already underway, and the Fire Department had even issued a show-cause notice to him. They maintained that Patil was innocent and that the allegations were vague.
Prosecution’s Stand:
However, the prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Supriya Kak, opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense. The prosecution highlighted that Patil had worked in the recruitment section for several years, holding a position of authority that allowed him to exploit the recruitment process for personal gain. They argued that Patil was actively involved in the scam, as he had knowledge of the recruitment operations and manipulated the process to unjustly enrich himself.
The prosecution further revealed that other victims had come forward with similar complaints, indicating that the fraudulent scheme had impacted a larger number of candidates. They asserted that Patil’s custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover all facets of the scam and identify others involved.
Court’s Decision:
Presiding Judge R.N. Laddha, after hearing the arguments, rejected the anticipatory bail application. The court noted that the material on record suggested Patil’s involvement in the fraudulent scheme. The judge emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to further investigate the scheme, recover the illicit gains, and identify other individuals involved in the scam. Given the ongoing investigation and the possibility of more victims, the court held that granting pre-arrest bail would hinder the investigation process.
Leave a Reply