Mumbai, March 13, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Vishal Kiritbhai Parekh, accused in a cheque theft and forgery case. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, presiding over Court Room No. 30, allowed Parekh’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 558 of 2024), citing the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet.

Parekh was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 18/2022, registered with DCB CID Unit-2, Mumbai (corresponding to C.R. No. 02/2022, L.T. Marg Police Station), for offenses under sections 380 (theft in dwelling house, etc.), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine¹ a forged document or electronic record), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).²

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, on January 2, 2022, Parekh and his co-accused conspired to steal cheques and demand drafts from the cheque drop box of HDFC Bank, Zaveri Bazar, Byculla Branch. They allegedly forged the beneficiary names on the cheques and handed them over to a wanted accused, Sureshbhai Vishnoi, who deposited the cheques into bank accounts opened with bogus documents. Vishnoi then withdrew the funds, cheating the actual beneficiaries. The report was lodged by Megha Thorat, a bank clerk.

Defense Arguments:

Parekh, through his advocate Sandeep Dubey, argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated. He highlighted that he was arrested on February 20, 2022, had undergone custodial interrogation, and was the sole earning member of his family. He emphasized that there were no criminal antecedents against him, the charge sheet was filed, and the investigation was completed. He also stated that he was a permanent resident of his given address.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Iqbal Solkar, opposed the bail application. They argued that Parekh’s release would affect the collection of evidence, pose a flight risk, and lead to witness tampering and evidence tampering.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

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

• Completed Investigation: The court noted that the charge sheet had been filed, and the investigation was completed.
• Length of Custody: The court observed that Parekh was arrested on February 20, 2022, and had been in custody for over two years.
• Role Attributed: The court acknowledged the role attributed to Parekh in conspiring to steal and forge cheques.
• CCTV Footage: The court mentioned the existence of CCTV footage as evidence.
• Habitual Offender: The court noted the prosecution’s claim that Parekh was a habitual offender, but stated that the prosecution had not provided evidence of any convictions.
• Trial Delay: The court acknowledged that the trial would take time to conclude and stated that Parekh could not be kept in custody indefinitely.

Judge Sasne concluded that, considering the completion of the investigation and the length of custody, Parekh was entitled to bail subject to conditions.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Parekh bail on the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Bond (P.B.) and Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹30,000 with one or two sureties.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses and evidence.
• He must attend the concerned police station once every two months until the framing of charges.
• Provisional cash bail of the same amount was allowed, with the condition that he must furnish surety within four weeks, failing which the cash bail would be forfeited.
• 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:

• Completed Investigation: The court considered the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet as a significant factor in granting bail.
• Length of Custody: The court considered the length of the accused’s detention.
• 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 the investigation is complete and conditions can be imposed to mitigate potential risks.