Mumbai, August 23, 2022 – Ramchandra Chinappa Pawar, accused of forging documents to secure bail for two individuals, has been denied bail by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar. The court cited prima facie evidence of Pawar’s involvement in the forgery and expressed concerns about potential obstruction of the ongoing investigation.

Pawar was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 215/2019 registered at Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. He is charged under Sections 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 473 (making or possessing counterfeit seal), 474 (having possession of documents or electronic record knowing it to be forged), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case:

The case originated from C.R. No. 67/2018, registered by DCB CID, Mumbai, where certain accused were granted bail. As a condition of their bail, they were required to submit specific documents. It is alleged that these documents were forged. The court, upon verification, found discrepancies and directed the Crime Branch to investigate and register a separate offense.

Pawar was identified as the surety for Shamim Hussein Anis Rehman and Rubell Ansar Ghazi. The investigation revealed that the documents submitted by Pawar, including a payslip, were forged using bogus seals and stamps.

Defense Arguments:

Advocate K.A. Patel, representing Pawar, argued that his client was falsely implicated and had merely stood as surety on friendly terms. He claimed that the primary accused had forged the documents and submitted them as genuine. Patel also highlighted that Pawar had no prior criminal record.

Prosecution’s Stance:

Ld. APP. Mr. Gondwal, representing the State, opposed the bail application, arguing that Pawar’s active involvement in the forgery was evident. The prosecution presented evidence, including a verification report from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), which showed discrepancies between the payslip submitted by Pawar and the actual records. They also expressed concerns about Pawar absconding or tampering with evidence if released.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Joglekar, after reviewing the arguments and evidence, concluded that there was prima facie evidence of Pawar’s involvement in the forgery. The court rejected Pawar’s defense that he was unaware of the forged nature of the documents, particularly the payslip, which pertained to him.

“Considering this particular defence, I am unable to accept the fact that the Applicant/accused was unaware of the papers which were furnished before the court,” Judge Joglekar stated in his order.

The court emphasized that while deciding a bail application, it is essential to determine whether a prima facie case exists, without conducting a detailed examination of the merits of the prosecution’s case.

The court also expressed concerns that granting bail would derail the ongoing investigation.

“It is evident that investigation is still under progress and therefore I do not find this as a fit case for grant of relief as redressed by the Applicant/accused. Moreover, granting of such relief would naturally derail the momentum of investigation,” the judge noted.

Consequently, the court rejected Pawar’s bail application, ensuring his continued detention pending further investigation and trial. This decision underscores the court’s stance against document forgery, especially when it is used to manipulate the judicial process.