Mumbai, February 20, 2024 – Ishan Abdul Rehman Shaikh and Shahbaz Mohamamd Salim Shaikh, accused in a multi-crore forgery and cheating case, have been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. Additional Sessions Judge A.S. Salgar allowed their bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 312 of 2024), citing the lack of specific allegations against them and the completion of the investigation.

The Shaikhs were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 491/2023, registered at Chunabhatti Police Station, for offenses punishable under sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will,¹ etc.), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record),² 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property), and 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal³ Code (IPC).

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, Naresh Manohar Ramkrishnani, who runs an electric wire business, was defrauded of goods worth ₹15,93,428. He received a purchase order and a demand draft (DD) for ₹22,58,331, which turned out to be forged. The goods were delivered, but the DD was dishonored. The FIR named accused Rajesh, Avdhesh Pathak, and Kiran Bhagat as the primary perpetrators.

Defense Arguments:

The Shaikhs’ advocate, Bhavesh Pawar, argued that his clients were falsely implicated and had not committed any crime. He contended that the charges against them were not applicable and that their detention until the trial’s conclusion was unnecessary. He emphasized their willingness to cooperate with the police.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), Rakesh Tiwari, argued that the Shaikhs had misrepresented themselves as businessmen and misappropriated the goods. He stated that they had also prepared forged documents and that their release would lead to witness tampering and absconding.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Salgar, after reviewing the FIR and remand application, noted that the Shaikhs were named as accused numbers 6 and 7. He highlighted the following:

• Lack of Specific Allegations: There were no specific allegations that the Shaikhs had cheated the complainant or prepared forged documents.
• Primary Accused: The FIR primarily implicated Rajesh, Kiran, and Avdesh Pathak in the forgery of the DD and purchase order.
• Completed Investigation: The investigation against the Shaikhs was practically complete, and further custodial interrogation was not required.
• No Criminal Antecedents: The Shaikhs had no prior criminal record and were permanent residents of Mumbai.
• Parity: Other accused in the same case had been granted bail by the same court.
• Triable by Magistrate: The alleged offenses were triable by a Metropolitan Magistrate.

Considering these factors, the court concluded that the Shaikhs were entitled to bail on the ground of parity and due to the lack of specific allegations against them.

Conditions of Bail:

Judge Salgar granted the Shaikhs bail on the following conditions:

• They must furnish a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹50,000 each with one or more solvent sureties of the same amount.
• They must attend Chunabhatti Police Station every Sunday between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM until the filing of the charge sheet.
• They must provide their residential addresses, mobile numbers, and email addresses to the investigating officer and inform of any changes.
• They must not directly or indirectly influence or threaten any person acquainted with the case.
• They must not leave India without prior permission from the trial court.
• Breach of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.
• They were provided with provisional cash bail of 50,000 each for a period of two weeks to provide surety.
• Bail must be furnished before the Learned Trial Court.

Significance of the Order:

This order emphasizes the importance of specific allegations in criminal cases. The court’s decision reflects its adherence to the principle of parity and its consideration of the completion of the investigation and the accused’s background. It also shows that when the primary accusations are against other people, and the current applicants have little to no direct accusations against them, that they are more likely to recieve bail.