Mumbai, March 8, 2022 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Sandeep Dashrath Choube, accused in a cheating and forgery case. Additional Sessions Judge Deepak L. Bhagwat, presiding over Court Room No. 60, allowed Choube’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 106 of 2022), citing his limited involvement in the alleged offenses and the fact that other co-accused had already been granted bail.

Choube was arrested in connection with MECR No. 1/21, registered at Ghatkopar Police Station, for offenses under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 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), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506² (criminal intimidation), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code³ (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, co-accused Parag, Jayashree, and Bhavin deceived the complainant and induced him to pay ₹63,93,500. They repaid only ₹46,03,000, leaving a balance of ₹14,90,500. Parag further obtained ₹12,09,500 from the complainant, promising to give him a flat in Kalyan. However, the flat was already mortgaged. To settle the total amount of ₹27,00,000, Parag executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in favor of the complainant. Choube also executed the MOU as the owner of the property, despite it having been sold earlier.

Defense Arguments:

Choube, through his advocate Shivaji Farakate, argued that he was not connected to the complainant or the initial transaction. He denied signing the MOU and claimed that his further custody was not required. He also pointed out that other co-accused had been granted bail.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Seema Deshpande, opposed the bail application. She argued that Choube had executed the MOU without disclosing the earlier sale of the property, thereby committing forgery. She asserted that there was material evidence against him.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

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

• Limited Involvement: The court noted that Choube was not the person to whom the complainant had made payments and was not involved in the initial transaction.
• Allegation of Forgery: The court acknowledged the allegation that Choube had executed the MOU concealing the earlier sale, but noted that Choube denied signing the document.
• Document Seized: The court observed that the MOU had been seized, and the question of forgery would be determined during the trial.
• Police Custody Over and Charge Sheet Filed: The court noted that Choube’s police custody period was over and the charge sheet had been filed.
• Parity: The court considered that other co-accused had already been granted bail.
• Indefinite Detention: The court stated that continuing Choube’s detention for an indefinite period would amount to punitive detention without trial, which is impermissible.

Judge Bhagwat concluded that it was just and proper to allow the bail application subject to conditions.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Choube bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Bond (P.B.) of ₹20,000 and provide one or two solvent sureties of the same amount.
• Provisional cash security of ₹20,000 was permitted for one month in lieu of the surety bond.
• He must attend Ghatkopar Police Station every Monday between 10:00 AM and 12:00 PM until the charge sheet is filed.
• He must submit a list of at least three blood relatives with their detailed residential addresses and work addresses (if any), along with documentary proof.
• He and the surety must inform the police and the trial court of any change in their residential addresses.
• He must submit copies of at least two documents among PAN card, Aadhaar card, ration card, electricity bill, voter ID card, or property documents.
• The investigating officer must conduct physical verification of the residential address.
• He must not induce or threaten any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with evidence.
• He must not leave the territorial limits of India without prior court permission.
• Conditions 5 to 8 must be complied with simultaneously with the furnishing of cash security or surety bond.
• Bail must be furnished before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s consideration of:

• Limited Involvement: The court considered Choube’s limited involvement in the alleged offenses.
• Parity: The court considered the fact that other co-accused had been granted bail.
• Completion of Investigation: The court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed stringent conditions to ensure Choube’s presence and prevent any interference with the investigation.
• Prevention of Punitive Detention: The court emphasized the impermissibility of punitive detention without trial.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly when the accused’s involvement is limited and other co-accused have been granted bail.