Mumbai, March 13, 2024 – Gautam Gopal Mohan Verma, accused in a multi-crore online fraud case targeting a 71-year-old woman and her husband, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. The order, issued by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. S. D. Tawshikar in Court Room No. 10, comes in response to Criminal Bail Application No. 420 of 2024.

Verma was arrested in connection with Crime No. 251 of 2023, registered at Cuffe Parade Police Station, for offenses under Sections 384 (extortion), 465 (forgery), 466 (forgery of record of court or public register), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 419 (cheating by personation), and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections¹ 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology² Act, 2000.

The case involves the elderly couple being lured by anonymous callers posing as Provident Fund (PF) officers, who claimed their PF amount had increased to ₹11 crore. The accused then allegedly defrauded them of ₹4,35,50,277 under the pretext of various government clearances and taxes. The prosecution alleged that Verma, in collusion with other co-accused, facilitated the transfer of the defrauded amount to various bank accounts, including overseas accounts.

In his bail application, Verma, represented by Advocate Rajesh Chavan, argued that the chargesheet revealed limited allegations against him, primarily concerning the receipt of ₹25,96,130 in his HDFC bank account. He claimed this amount was received at the request of a co-accused, Rahamatullah (absconding), under the guise of a flat sale, and was subsequently withdrawn by Rahamatullah using Verma’s debit card. He emphasized that the investigation against him was complete and the chargesheet had been filed.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ajit Chavan, strongly opposed the bail, citing Verma’s two prior criminal antecedents in Hyderabad and Lucknow, and his pattern of opening multiple bank accounts for fraudulent activities. They also highlighted the bank statement showing the receipt and withdrawal of the defrauded amount.

Judge Tawshikar, after considering the arguments and evidence, noted that Verma was not the main accused and the chargesheet had been filed. He acknowledged the allegations regarding the receipt and withdrawal of funds from Verma’s account but emphasized that the evidence had already been collected by the prosecution. While noting Verma’s prior criminal records, the court stated that this alone could not be the reason to deny bail.

“Considering over all circumstances, I find further detention of applicant/accused behind bars is unwarranted,” Judge Tawshikar stated in his order.

The court granted bail to Verma under the following stringent conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of the same amount.
• He is prohibited from leaving India without prior permission from the trial court.
• He must visit Cuffe Parade Police Station for investigation related to the absconding co-accused when called by the Investigating Officer.
• He is prohibited from tampering with prosecution evidence.
• He must not influence, threaten, or promise any person related to the case.
• He must provide proof of residence and his active phone number to the police station within seven days of release.
• He is prohibited from committing any criminal act while on bail.
• The request for provisional cash bail was rejected.
• Bail is to be executed before the learned Trial Court.

This decision highlights the court’s balancing act between individual liberty and the seriousness of the alleged offenses. It also reflects the court’s consideration of the stage of the investigation and the specific role attributed to the accused.