Mumbai, September 7, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. A. A. Joglekar, at the Gr. Mumbai Sessions Court, has rejected the bail application of Suresh Jagubhai Patel @ Sukha Patel, an accused in a case involving forged documents used to obtain a passport. Patel is facing charges under Sections 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code1 (IPC), along with Section 12(1) of the Passport Act, in connection with C.R. No. 61/2020 registered at BKC Police Station.
The prosecution’s case, as outlined in the court order, states that the informant, a Sub Inspector in the Police Department, received information regarding a crime (C.R.No. 39/2018) involving serious offences including murder and arms violations, where the accused Suresh Jagubhai Patel @ Sukha Patel was declared absconding, leading to the issuance of a lookout notice.
Further investigation revealed that Patel had obtained a passport (No. K6738548). Subsequent verification of the documents submitted by Patel to the passport authorities allegedly revealed them to be forged, bogus, and frivolous, and it was on this basis that he had obtained the passport. Consequently, the current case was registered, and the applicant was arrested.
The learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr. H. J. Mehta, argued that Patel was falsely implicated and had no connection to the present crime. He stated that the police had seized all relevant documents, including the original passport, thus eliminating any chance of the applicant absconding or traveling abroad. Mr. Mehta further submitted that since the offences registered against Patel were not punishable with life or death, he was entitled to bail.
However, the prosecution, represented by learned APP Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal, strongly opposed the application. In their reply (Exh.2), they asserted that Patel had submitted forged documents, including a fake bank passbook, to obtain the passport. Crucially, the prosecution brought to the court’s attention a list of 32 criminal cases previously registered against the applicant under various crimes. The prosecution expressed apprehension that if released on bail, Patel might tamper with evidence and abscond.
After hearing both sides and meticulously examining the case papers, Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Joglekar noted that the applicant had not categorically denied availing the passport. The court highlighted that if the passport was indeed obtained by the applicant and the documents used for it were found to be forged, bogus, and fake, then the applicant was prima facie not entitled to bail.
The court reiterated the settled principle that while deciding a bail application, the court needs to see if a prima facie case exists, without conducting a detailed inquiry into the merits of the prosecution’s case.
Dr. Joglekar emphasized that the documents relied upon by Patel to obtain the passport, including those pertaining to his Mumbai residence and bank passbook, were allegedly forged by him. Moreover, the significant number of prior criminal antecedents (32 cases) registered against Patel spoke volumes about his conduct. The court concluded that in light of these facts, Patel’s role in obtaining the passport using false documents could not be negated, and granting bail would likely derail the investigation. Therefore, the court found no merit in the application.
Order:
Bail Application No. 1862/2022 stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.
The order was dictated on August 30, 2022, transcribed on September 5, 2022, and signed by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar on September 7, 2022. The certified true and correct copy was uploaded on September 7, 2022, at 5:25 p.m.
This case highlights the court’s stringent stance against individuals involved in passport forgery, especially when the accused has a substantial criminal history. The large number of prior offences significantly influenced the court’s decision to deny bail, emphasizing the concern about potential tampering of evidence and the accused absconding.