The Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai has granted regular bail to Jyoti Krishna Vise (40), a woman accused of conspiracy in a case involving the fraudulent acquisition of an Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) Card. The order, delivered on April 23, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1030 of 2024, highlights a crucial aspect of bail jurisprudence: the principle of parity supersedes the prosecution’s objections when a similarly situated co-accused has already been released. Ms. Vise was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 359 of 2021 registered at Azad Maidan Police Station for offenses under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 420 (Cheating), 465, 467, 468, 471 (Forgery offenses), and 34 (Common Intention).
Allegations of Forgery and Fraudulent Marriage
The central allegation against Ms. Vise was that she assisted a UK national, David John Lincon, in obtaining an OCI Card. This was allegedly achieved by preparing a false marriage certificate to satisfy the required criteria for OCI status. The defense, represented by Adv. Kiran Varma, painted a picture of the applicant as a vulnerable individual, submitting that she is a widow who lives in Goa and survives by doing domestic and household jobs. They further emphasized that she is an orphan with no immediate family or children. The court records also showed that the person involved in the alleged fraudulent marriage with the applicant, Danial Harris, has since been reported deceased.
Prosecution’s Failed Opposition: Abscondence Not a Bar
The prosecution, led by Ld. APP Shri. Chavan and PI Mr. Mane, vigorously opposed the bail plea. Their primary argument was focused on the applicant’s conduct post-FIR registration (dated August 4, 2021). They pointed out that Ms. Vise had been absconding for two and a half years and was only arrested recently, on March 21, 2024. The prosecution contended that her abscondence demonstrated her criminal intent and the probability of her fleeing justice or committing further offenses if released. They urged the Court to reject the application, arguing her full knowledge and participation in the fraud necessitated continued detention.
The Decisive Factor: The Law of Parity
Despite the prosecution’s strong objections regarding abscondence, the Court found its decision constrained by judicial precedent. The most compelling argument for the defense proved to be the principle of parity. The Court noted that co-accused Shanti Surendra Naik, who was facing allegations similar to those leveled against Ms. Vise, had already been released on bail by the Court’s predecessor in May 2023. The Court stated explicitly that the “law of parity would help the present applicant.” This principle ensures that co-accused persons facing similar charges and circumstances should generally be treated equally, preventing discriminatory application of justice.
Furthermore, the Judge observed that a charge-sheet had already been filed against the co-accused (Shanti Naik). Based on this fact, and considering the time spent in custody, the Court concluded that the investigation against the present applicant was “practically over.” With no further custodial interrogation deemed necessary, the Court found justifiable grounds to release the applicant, thereby overriding the concerns about her prior abscondence.
Conditions Imposed for Judicial Release
The Court allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 1030 of 2024. Jyoti Krishna Vise was ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
- Bail Bond: She must execute a Personal Recognizance (PR) and Surety Bond (SB) of ₹10,000/-.
- Provisional Cash Bail: A provisional cash bail of ₹10,000/- was allowed for a period of eight weeks.
- Reporting Mandate: The applicant must attend Azad Maidan Police Station on the day immediately following her release and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer, either until the charge-sheet is filed or for the next two months, whichever is earlier.
- Compliance: She must submit her identity and address proof to the Investigating Officer within eight weeks. Any breach of these conditions would automatically lead to the cancellation of her bail.
This ruling underscores the Sessions Court’s commitment to uniformity in criminal justice, confirming that completed investigations and the treatment of co-accused often outweigh fears of future misconduct when granting bail.