The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, in its order dated May 10, 2024, decisively rejected the regular bail application of Mohammed Parvez Abdul Shaikh in a case involving serious allegations of forgery and fraud impacting the administration of criminal justice. The applicant, facing charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those relating to the fabrication and fraudulent use of documents, sought relief under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This judgment, designated Criminal Bail Application No. 1214 of 2024, underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against crimes that compromise the integrity of court processes, particularly those involving the manipulation of the bail system through fraudulent surety bonds.

The genesis of the case lies in Crime No. 674/2021 registered at Mulund Police Station, Mumbai. The applicant and co-accused were booked for a plethora of offences: Sections 465 (Punishment for forgery), 466 (Forgery of record of Court or of public register), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), 473 (Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit forgery punishable otherwise), 474 (Having possession of document described in Section 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine¹), and 420 (Cheating), all read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC. The specific and highly detrimental allegation was that the applicant and his accomplices forged official documents, used these fabricated documents as genuine, and furnished them along with a false affidavit to the Court to stand as surety for an accused person in a separate criminal case, namely C.C. No. 603/PW/2018.

During the investigation, crucial details emerged, which were presented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri Abhijeet Gondwal, opposing the bail plea. The investigation revealed that the applicant forged documents and stood as surety for one Sandeep Jawahar Gaud in exchange for a monetary consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, allegedly at the behest of one Muzafar Khan. The investigating officer’s strong opposition was based on the gravity of the offence and the subsequent apprehension that if released, the applicant, who was noted to have no permanent residence, might commit similar offences, flee from justice, and pressurize prosecution witnesses. These concerns directly pertain to the potential for recidivism and the sanctity of the ongoing investigation, two cardinal factors weighed heavily in bail jurisprudence.

The defence, represented by learned advocate Shri Amol Palke, put forth arguments for the applicant’s release. However, the Court, presided over by HH The Addl. Sessions Judge Shri. V. M. Sundale, meticulously reviewed the case records and the submissions from both parties. The judicial scrutiny confirmed that the registration of the offence followed a necessary inquiry and that the name and specific role of the applicant were clearly detailed in the First Information Report (FIR). The central finding was that the accusations against Mohammed Parvez Abdul Shaikh were “prima facie well founded and based on the documents.”

The Court placed particular emphasis on the devastating nature of the crime, explicitly stating that the offence was “serious and it has direct impact on administration of criminal justice.” The deliberate act of introducing fraudulent documents into court proceedings to secure the release of an accused person was viewed as an attack on the foundational fairness and honesty of the legal system. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the severe potential punishment associated with one of the key charges, noting that the offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. Considering this severity, the ongoing nature of the investigation, the lack of permanent residence, and the well-founded apprehensions raised by the investigating officer regarding the applicant’s potential to impede justice, the Court concluded that the applicant was “not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.” The order effectively rejected Criminal Bail Application No. 1214 of 2024, sending a clear message that the courts will protect judicial processes from deliberate and fraudulent interference.