Mumbai, July 12, 2022 – In a ruling that highlights the significance of completed offenses and the limitations of preliminary acts, the Additional Sessions Judge Shri A.A. Kulkarni (C.R. No. 24) granted bail to Rajneet Janardhan Thripathi, a jewellery designer, in connection with an alleged forged cheque case registered at Kalachowki Police Station (C.R. No. 283/2022). The court’s decision was primarily based on the fact that the alleged forged cheque was not encashed, limiting the scope of completed offenses.

Background of the Case:

Rajneet Janardhan Thripathi, a 37-year-old resident of Diva (East), was arrested in connection with a case involving allegations of forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. The police claimed that Thripathi and other accused were involved in preparing and attempting to encash a forged cheque of Rs. 78,00,000 from the account of the informant’s father. The offenses registered were under Sections 420 (cheating), 464 (making a false document), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 511 (attempt to commit offenses), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).¹

Arguments Presented:

Mr. Ashok Jaiswar, the advocate representing Thripathi, argued that his client was falsely implicated in the case. He pointed out that the alleged cheque was prepared by an unknown person and was given to Suketu Ramchandera Deve, who had received it from Jayesh Shah. He emphasized that the cheque was not encashed by the bank, and therefore, the offenses of cheating and related forgery charges were not completed. He argued that only a charge of forgery under Section 465 of the IPC could potentially stand, as the forged cheque had already been seized by the police.

Ms. Ratnavali Patil, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) representing the State, opposed the bail application. She argued that Thripathi and other accused had committed a serious offense by conspiring and attempting to encash the forged cheque. She expressed concerns that Thripathi might abscond if released on bail.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

After reviewing the submissions and the documents on record, Judge Kulkarni focused on the crucial fact that the alleged cheque was not encashed.

“It is clear that alleged cheque is not encashed by its banker,” Judge Kulkarni stated in his oral order. “Therefore, no offence of cheating is completed.”

The judge further noted that based on the prosecution’s story, the offenses under Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC were also not prima facie made out, as the account holder denied issuing the cheque.

“Therefore, in such circumstances, prima facie, only offence under Section 465 of IPC i.e. commission of forgery of the documents is made out,” the judge observed.

Considering that the offense under Section 465 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment up to two years and that the cheque was not encashed, the court concluded that Thripathi’s indefinite detention was not warranted.

“If presence made involvement in the commission of the crime than also prima facie only offence under Section 465 of IPC is only made out which is punishable upto imprisonment of two years,” the judge noted. “Further, merely the cheque amount was of Rs.78,00,000/- which is not encashed. Therefore, indefinite detention of applicant is not warranted.”

Consequently, the court granted bail to Rajneet Janardhan Thripathi, ordering his release upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of Rs. 50,000 along with one or two sureties of the same amount.

The court imposed several conditions, including that Thripathi must attend Kalachowki Police Station when summoned by the Investigating Officer, provide his residential address proof and contact numbers, refrain from influencing witnesses, and not leave India without the court’s permission.

Implications and Significance:

This ruling highlights the importance of completed offenses in criminal law. The court’s decision underscores that mere attempts, without completion of the intended crime, may limit the scope of charges and the severity of punishment. The case also emphasizes the court’s consideration of the potential punishment for the established offense when deciding on bail applications.

The decision serves as a reminder of the need for thorough investigation and the presentation of substantial evidence to justify the continued detention of an accused person.

The order was dictated, transcribed, and signed on July 11, 2022, and uploaded on July 12, 2022, at 4:30 p.m.