Mumbai, Maharashtra – December 1, 2023 – A Special Judge for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at Greater Bombay, S. H. Gwalani (Court Room No. 48), has rejected the bail application of Aman Kumar alias Rupesh Narendra Verma, a prime accused in an alleged multi-crore fake government job scam. The court underscored the serious nature of the offenses, the ongoing investigation, and the alleged systematic defrauding of “helpless, desperate young jobseekers.”
Aman Kumar, 33, hailing from Dhanbad, Jharkhand, was seeking bail in a case registered by the CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), Mumbai, for offenses punishable under sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections 7 and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
The Allegations: A Sophisticated Job Fraud
The case originated from a complaint filed by Ajay Pandurang Patil on November 2, 2023, based on which an FIR was registered on November 8, 2023. According to the CBI, in October 2022, Patil was approached by an acquaintance, Ajay Kumar, who claimed to know officials in various government departments like the Food Corporation of India (FCI), Railways, GST, and Income Tax, and could secure jobs there.
Patil then introduced 24 job-seekers, including Gaurav Gharate and Dinesh Jadhav, to Ajay Kumar. Initially, two individuals paid “security deposits” as demanded. They subsequently received job offer letters via email from an ID resembling a legitimate government address (agmhrms@fcigov.org.in).
The scam deepened as 18 of the 24 job-seekers received offer letters and underwent “training” at various locations including Dhanbad, Patna, Nokha, Arwal, Kolkata, and Mumbai. However, they reportedly received irregular or no salaries after the first few months, and the training provided was “very basic and repetitive,” with locations frequently changing. Upon consulting genuine government officials, Patil discovered that no government department demands security deposits before joining.
The CBI’s investigation revealed that the accused individuals used fake names. Aman Kumar, the applicant, allegedly impersonated “Rupesh,” while co-accused Vishal Kumar Bharti posed as “Abhishek Singh.” They even possessed Aadhaar cards in these fake names. These individuals allegedly conspired with “unknown public servants/private persons” to create a wide-ranging racket.
Incriminating Evidence Unearthed
During searches conducted at multiple locations across Bengaluru, Mangaluru, Mumbai, Patna, and Dhanbad, investigators recovered forged appointment letters, application forms filled by candidates, stamps of various Government Departments, and letterheads.
Specifically, from Aman Kumar’s premises, forged/fake appointment letters, government stamps, and cash amounting to Rs. 14,11,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eleven Thousand only) were seized. Forged letters were also recovered from Ajay Kumar G’s office, and incriminating chats were found on Vishal Kumar Bharti’s mobile phone.
The CBI’s scrutiny of bank accounts revealed that victims deposited large sums through various channels, including cash deposit machines, UPI transactions, RTGS, and NEFT transfers into accounts linked to the co-accused. An amount of Rs. 13,75,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Seventy-Five Thousand only) was subsequently transferred into Aman Kumar’s account.
The investigation indicates that Aman Kumar, impersonating “Rupesh,” introduced himself as the “main in-charge of the genuine training institute” for all victims. He allegedly instructed co-accused Vishal to make logistics arrangements for picking up candidates and transporting them to fake training centers. The CBI stated that during preliminary interrogation, Aman Kumar was deeply involved but was “not disclosing the facts and circumstances and his complete role.”
Defence Argues Innocence, Prosecution Cites Tampering Risk
Advocate Shri Irfan A. A. Ansari, representing Aman Kumar, argued that his client was falsely implicated and had no connection to the alleged offenses. He claimed the case was “foisted” with “false and foisted allegations” and that the prosecution had not adequately explained the modus operandi or the chain of events. He also stated that his client had no criminal antecedents and would cooperate with the investigation.
Conversely, SPP Shri Vimal Soni for the CBI vehemently opposed bail, reiterating the detailed nature of the investigation and the recovery of incriminating material and amounts. He expressed a “reasonable apprehension” that if released on bail, the accused would “definitely try to influence the prosecution witnesses.”
Soni emphasized that the investigation is at a “initial and crucial stage,” with important witnesses, including the complainant and victims/job seekers, yet to be fully examined. The role of unknown public servants is still under investigation to “unearth the whole racket of fake jobs and trainings.” He also noted that bank accounts needed further identification and the full extent of the “ill-gotten money” was yet to be traced.
Court’s Reasoning: Serious Offence, Ongoing Probe, and Social Implications
Judge Gwalani thoroughly reviewed the case diary, bail application, and submitted records. The court differentiated the present case from previous trap cases cited by the defence, where a major part of the investigation might be concluded upon recovery of bribe money.
In this instance, the Judge noted the serious nature of the crime, highlighting that it involved “defrauding of helpless desperate young jobseekers by applicant and other co-accused persons who mercilessly played and ruined dreams of getting a decent job for livelihood.” The court emphasized the “specific allegations against the accused persons pertaining to forged employment and collecting money from various job seekers,” with a “total magnitude of amount involved… in crores of rupees.”
The court found that the crime has “multiple social implications” and allegedly occurred across “several geographical locations.” Given that the investigation is still ongoing, particularly regarding the role of unknown public servants and the full recovery of funds, the court concurred with the CBI’s apprehension that granting bail would lead to witness tampering and a risk of the applicant fleeing justice.
“These types of offences are more serious and harmful to the Nation/society,” the order stated. The court found the defence’s arguments premature, concluding that “no case is made out by the applicant for grant of bail” at this initial and crucial stage of the investigation.
ORDER:
“Bail Application No. 1028 of 2023 stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.”