Mumbai, May 3, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai has granted bail to Taslimun Nisha Mohammad Athar Ansari, accused in a forgery and cheating case. Additional Sessions Judge A.A. Kulkarni, presiding over Court Room No. 22, allowed Ansari’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 1143 of 2024), citing the documentary nature of the evidence and the accused’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Ansari was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 313/2024, registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, for offenses under sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 466 (forgery of record of court or public register, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of the Indian Penal Code¹ (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the FIR, the complainant, a police officer working in the passport branch, received instructions to verify QR codes on birth and death certificates. If the QR code did not open the linked document, the certificate was to be treated as potentially fraudulent and verified with the issuing office. Ansari submitted a birth certificate for herself while applying for a passport for her minor child. The QR code on the certificate did not open the linked document, leading to the registration of the case.

Defense Arguments:

Ansari, through her advocate S.M. Shoaib, argued that she was falsely implicated and had not committed any offense. She emphasized that she had been in police custody since April 23, 2024, had no criminal antecedents, and was a permanent resident of Mumbai. She stated her willingness to cooperate with the police and abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP J.N. Suryawanshi, opposed the bail application. They argued that Ansari had submitted a forged certificate to obtain a passport and that her release might lead to tampering with evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

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

• Documentary Evidence: The court noted that the alleged offenses were based on documentary evidence, which was already in police custody.
• No Further Custodial Interrogation: The court concluded that further custodial interrogation of Ansari was not required.
• Cooperation with Investigation: The court believed that directing Ansari to appear before the investigating officer when required would serve the purpose of further investigation.

Judge Kulkarni concluded that, considering the nature of the evidence and Ansari’s willingness to cooperate, she was entitled to be released on bail.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Ansari bail on the following conditions:

• She must furnish a Personal Bond (P.R.) of ₹25,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• She must attend Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, as and when required by the investigating officer on notice.
• She must furnish her residential address proof and contact numbers to the investigating officer.
• She must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• She must not leave India without prior court permission.
• Provisional cash surety was allowed for eight weeks.
• Bail must be furnished before the learned court below.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Documentary Evidence: The court considered the documentary nature of the evidence and its custody with the police.
• No Further Custodial Interrogation: The court considered the lack of necessity for further custodial interrogation.
• Cooperation with Investigation: The court considered the accused’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent any interference with the investigation.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly in cases involving documentary evidence and when the accused is willing to cooperate with the investigation.