The Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, presided over by H.H. Additional Sessions Judge A. A. Kulkarni (C.R. No. 22), allowed the regular bail application of Islam Mohd Shafi Khan in connection with a case involving the alleged use of a forged birth certificate to obtain a passport. The order, issued on May 4, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1145 of 2024, provides significant insight into the judicial approach to granting bail in forgery and cheating cases where the primary evidence is already in the custody of law enforcement. The applicant, a 34-year-old resident of Govandi, Mumbai, was arrested under Sections 420 (Cheating), 465, 466, and 471 (various aspects of Forgery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) under C.R. No. 336/2024 of Shivaji Nagar Police Station.
Background of the Passport Fraud Allegations
The case was initiated based on a complaint lodged by a police personnel working in the passport branch. The complaint arose from a directive issued by the passport office mandating rigorous verification of submitted birth or death certificates. Specifically, police branches were instructed to scan the QR code on such documents; if the code did not link to a valid source, the certificate was to be treated as potentially duplicate or bogus, requiring further verification from the issuing authority and subsequent legal action if found to be fake. In the course of this enhanced scrutiny, the authorities discovered that the applicant, Islam Mohd Shafi Khan, had allegedly manufactured a forged birth certificate for his mother from the Civil Hospital, Basti, Uttar Pradesh, and utilized it for the purpose of securing a passport. The application for bail before the Sessions Court followed his arrest and subsequent judicial custody.
Prosecution’s Opposition and Primary Concern
The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP J. N. Suryawanshi, strongly opposed the bail plea. Their primary contentions revolved around the seriousness of the offense, which involves forgery and cheating against a governmental process, namely passport issuance. They argued that the crime was a pre-meditated act to obtain a vital identification document through illegal means. Furthermore, the prosecution highlighted that one co-accused, Ramjit Keshavar, was yet to be arrested, raising a substantial concern that if the applicant were released, there would be a high possibility of him tampering with the evidence and influencing the investigation, thereby obstructing the arrest of the absconding co-accused and hindering the gathering of further evidence. The prosecution thus prayed for the rejection of the bail application, arguing that the applicant’s detention was necessary to facilitate the full course of the investigation.
Judicial Reasoning for Granting Bail
After carefully considering the submissions from both the defense counsel, Mr. Ahmed Parvez Idrisi, and the prosecution, as well as scrutinizing the FIR and case papers, the Court’s analysis focused on the nature of the evidence and the necessity of continued custodial detention. The Court noted that the entire structure of the alleged crime hinges on documentary evidence—specifically, the forged birth certificate and the official records pertaining to the passport application. Critically, the Court observed a dispositive fact: the alleged documents are already in the custody of the police. This fact substantially mitigated the prosecution’s fears regarding evidence tampering, as the physical evidence foundational to the case was secured. The Judge further concluded that given the documentary nature of the evidence, custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required for the purpose of further investigation.
No Necessity for Further Detention
The judicial reasoning emphasized the lack of necessity for continuing the applicant’s detention. The Court reasoned that once the investigation related to the recovery or securing of physical evidence (the forged documents) is completed, keeping the accused in jail serves no useful purpose, particularly when the accused has roots in society and is willing to cooperate. By directing the applicant to remain present before the investigating officer as and when required by notice, the Court determined that the purpose of securing the accused’s presence for any future investigative needs would be fulfilled. Therefore, concluding that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail, the Court proceeded to pass an order allowing the application while imposing specific conditions designed to safeguard the integrity of the ongoing investigation and the future trial process.
Conditions for Release
The Court allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 1145 of 2024, directing the applicant, Islam Mohd Shafi Khan, to be released on bail upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹25,000/- along with one or two sureties in the like amount. A crucial provision was also made for a provisional cash surety which was allowed for eight weeks, providing the applicant time to arrange for the required solvent sureties. Additional stringent conditions were imposed on the applicant, including the mandate to attend Shivaji Nagar Police Station as and when required by the Investigating Officer upon notice, to furnish all residential address and contact details, and to refrain from directly or indirectly influencing or threatening any person acquainted with the facts of the case. Furthermore, the applicant was strictly directed not to leave India without the Court’s previous permission. The breach of any of these imposed conditions would make the applicant liable for cancellation of bail.