Mumbai, May 3, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Fakiruddin Allauddin Sheikh, accused in a vehicle forgery and cheating case. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, presiding over Court Room No. 30, allowed Sheikh’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 883 of 2024), citing the principle of parity with co-accused who were previously granted bail.

Sheikh was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 81/2023, registered with DCB CID Unit-4 (corresponding to C.R. No. 1096/2023, Amboli Police Station), for offenses under sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document¹ or electronic record), 474 (possessing forged document 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).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, Sikandar Shah developed a modus operandi to purchase scrap dumper trucks at low prices, repair them, obtain No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from the Regional Transport Office (RTO) in Arunachal Pradesh, and then sell them with new registration numbers from Vasai RTO. Shah allegedly forged chassis and engine numbers to facilitate this process. The police seized several vehicles owned by Shah and Ramzan, including a tempo. Investigations revealed that these vehicles were purchased as scrap from Imran Mehraj and Nariruddin. Shah allegedly created forged documents in Orissa to show the vehicles were registered in Arunachal Pradesh and, with the help of Aenugu Reddy from Telangana, forged engine and chassis numbers before registering the vehicles with RTOs in Vasai and Virar.

Defense Arguments:

Sheikh, through his advocate Varun Pandey, argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated. He highlighted that he was arrested on December 22, 2023, had undergone custodial interrogation, and nothing remained to be seized from him. He emphasized that he was a permanent resident of his given address. He also cited that co-accused Ramzan Mehboob Shaikh, Sikandar Zarin Shah, and Aenugu Srinivas Reddy had already been granted bail, seeking parity.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Iqbal Solkar, opposed the bail application. They argued that Sheikh’s release would pose a flight risk and that he might threaten witnesses and tamper with evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Sasne, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:

• Parity with Co-Accused: The court noted that co-accused Ramzan Mehboob Shaikh, Sikandar Zarin Shah, and Aenugu Srinivas Reddy had already been granted bail.
• Role Attributed: The court acknowledged that Sheikh’s alleged role was helping to obtain forged NOCs from the RTO office in Arunachal Pradesh.
• Length of Custody: The court observed that Sheikh had been in custody since December 22, 2023, for over four months.
• Completed Investigation: The court noted that the charge sheet had been filed, and the investigation was completed.
• Trial Delay: The court acknowledged that the trial would take time to conclude and stated that Sheikh’s continued incarceration was unwarranted.

Judge Sasne concluded that, based on the principle of parity, Sheikh was entitled to bail.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Sheikh bail on the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Bond (P.B.) and Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹25,000 with one or two sureties.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses and evidence.
• He must regularly attend the concerned police station on the fourth Saturday of every month between 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM until the framing of charges.
• He must not leave India without prior court permission.
• Bail must be furnished before the concerned Magistrate.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Principle of Parity: The court applied the principle of parity, considering the bail granted to co-accused with similar roles.
• Length of Custody: The court considered the length of the accused’s detention.
• Completed Investigation: The court considered that the investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent any interference with the investigation.
• Balancing Rights and Interests: The court balanced the rights of the accused with the interests of justice by granting bail subject to conditions.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in considering bail applications, particularly when applying the principle of parity in cases involving multiple accused and completed investigations.