The Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Jitendra Bhikha Solanki, 51, accused of orchestrating a fraudulent job recruitment scheme. Solanki allegedly demanded ₹10 lakh from the informant, promising her son a job in the Solid Waste Management Department of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The case, registered under FIR No. 461/2024 at Mahim Police Station, charges Solanki under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating), read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Alleged Fraud:
According to the prosecution, Solanki, along with a co-accused, assured the informant that her son would secure a job in the MCGM in exchange for ₹10 lakh. Solanki is alleged to have received an initial sum of ₹2 lakh directly into his bank account and subsequently accepted a cheque for ₹3 lakh. He then handed over fraudulent job documents, including a medical examination report and a fake MCGM identity card, while demanding the remaining ₹5 lakh.
The informant, frustrated by the continued delays, conducted an independent inquiry with the MCGM. It was through this investigation that she discovered the job documents were forged, and no employment had been arranged for her son. The prosecution further noted that the cheque was deposited into the account of the wife of a deceased co-accused, raising suspicions about the broader involvement of other parties in the scheme.
Defense’s Argument:
Solanki’s defense argued that he was being falsely implicated in the case and that the FIR had been lodged with a significant delay, casting doubt on the veracity of the allegations. His counsel also asserted that Solanki, being a permanent employee of the MCGM, was not a flight risk, and that the investigation had already progressed to an advanced stage, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.
Prosecution’s Stand:
The prosecution, however, presented evidence showing that Solanki received ₹2 lakh in his personal bank account and had continued to give false assurances to the informant, delaying the promised job placement. They further argued that Solanki was a key player in the fraudulent scheme and that there was a possibility of other victims in similar circumstances. The prosecution emphasized that custodial interrogation was essential to fully uncover the extent of the fraud and to investigate the involvement of additional individuals.
Court’s Decision:
Presiding Judge R.N. Laddha rejected the anticipatory bail application, citing the severity of the offense and the need for further investigation. The court noted that the accusations against Solanki, including the receipt of money and the use of forged documents to deceive the informant, required thorough examination. The judge also highlighted the potential for other victims of the same scheme to come forward, further complicating the case.
The court determined that releasing Solanki on bail at this stage could impede the investigation and hinder the discovery of crucial evidence. In light of these factors, the court concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel the full extent of the fraud.
Leave a Reply