Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 12, 2024 – Mayank Pradeep Sharma, a 22-year-old resident of New Delhi, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a currency exchange fraud case registered at the DCB CID Unit-VIII (corresponding to Vakola Police Station).

Background of the Case:

Sharma was arrested and charged under sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a¹ forged document), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code² (IPC) in connection with C.R. No. 24/2024 (corresponding to C.R. No. 250/2024).

The prosecution alleged that Sharma and his co-accused induced the complainant to deliver 25,000 US dollars by promising an exchange amount of Rs. 21,25,000, and subsequently cheated the complainant.

Arguments Presented:

Sharma, through his advocate Prem Kumar R. Pandey, filed a bail application, arguing that his name was not mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) and that no significant recovery had been made from him during police custody.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ratnavali Patil, strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that the investigation was ongoing, Sharma’s involvement was evident in CCTV footage, and he was involved in similar offenses. They expressed concerns about Sharma committing similar offenses, tampering with the investigation, fleeing from justice, and pressuring witnesses.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge V.M. Sundale granted bail to Sharma. The court noted that:

• No Name in FIR: Sharma’s name was not mentioned in the initial FIR.
• Limited Recovery: During police custody, only a mobile handset, SIM card, hotel key cards, ATM cards, and a mobile bill were recovered from Sharma.
• No Recovery of Fraudulent Money: No recovery of the 25,000 US dollars was made.
• Indefinite Detention: The court expressed concern about keeping Sharma in custody for an indefinite period while the investigation continued.
• No Evidence of Other Cases: The prosecution claimed Sharma was involved in similar offenses, but no evidence was presented to support this claim.
• CCTV Footage: The court acknowledged the presence of the applicant in CCTV footage, but weighed this against the other factors of the case.

The court concluded that the apprehensions raised by the prosecution could be addressed by imposing certain conditions.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

The court granted bail to Mayank Pradeep Sharma on the following conditions:

• Personal Bond and Surety: He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• Contact Information: He and his surety must provide their mobile numbers, email addresses, and residential address documents.
• No Inducement or Threat: He must not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or pressurize any witness.
• No Leaving India: He must not leave India without prior court permission.
• Police Station Attendance: He must attend the DCB CID Unit-VIII police station every Monday between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM until the filing of the charge sheet.
• Provisional Cash Bail: Provisional cash bail of the same amount is allowed; he must furnish surety within four weeks, failing which the cash bail will be forfeited.
• Bail Cancellation: Breach of any condition will result in bail cancellation.
• Bail Execution: The bail must be furnished before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the lack of significant recovery and the concern about indefinite detention when determining bail applications. The court’s decision to grant bail, despite the serious nature of the charges, reflects its assessment that further detention was unnecessary, given the progress of the case and the imposition of conditions to ensure Sharma’s presence during the trial. The court also showed that simple claims of other crimes are not enough, and that evidence must be provided.