Mumbai court denies pre-arrest bail to man accused of illegally sending Indians abroad

Mumbai, Aug 19 (PT) A Mumbai court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of sending about 80 Indians to Europe, America and Gulf countries by providing them with fabricated passports and visas, noting his custodial interrogation was essential.

In an order passed last week, Additional Sessions Judge Prashant Kale held there was prima facie material showing "direct involvement of the applicant (accused)" in the offence.

Effective interrogation of the accused, Rajesh Panchal (55), was of "tremendous advantage" in getting useful information from him, the order, made available on Tuesday, observed.

It stressed that interrogation "would reduce to a mere formality" if the accused was protected by anticipatory bail.

The accused has been is booked under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for offences of personation, forgery and criminal conspiracy, among others, as well as Passport Act.

According to the prosecution, Panchal's associate, Roshan Dudwadkar (currently on bail) was arrested on February 28, 2025, at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport by officers from the Foreigner Regional Registration Office (FRRO).

As per the prosecution, Dudwadkar, during interrogation, made specific disclosure that he was working for Panchal and providing/preparing fabricated passports, visas for Indian citizens to facilitate their travel to Europe, the US and Gulf countries.

The arrested accused (Dudwadkar) revealed Panchal charged Rs 30 lakh to Rs 50 lakh from each person for sending them overseas, police said, adding 80 individuals were sent to foreign countries with the help of bogus documents.

Panchal's lawyer, Tripti Shetty, argued he was falsely implicated based on a co-accused's statement, and the allegations against him were "false, baseless, and malicious".

The defence submitted Dudwadkar and other co-accused in the case had been released on bail, entitling Panchal for same relief on grounds of parity.

Additional public prosecutor Ashwini Rayakar opposed the pre-arrest bail application, stating Panchal had not cooperated with investigation.

The prosecution argued that Panchal's custodial interrogation was essential to uncover the full scope of the crime, which involved forged government documents.

The court, after hearing both sides, noted Panchal's earlier anticipatory bail was rejected on the ground that his custodial interrogation was necessary.

The order highlighted that the FIR itself contained prima facie evidence of Panchal's direct involvement, based on Dudwadkar's disclosures.

"I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicant is very much essential to bring the truth on record," the court said, while rejecting Panchal's plea. PTI AVI RSY