The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay granted regular bail to the applicant, Mr. Rajesh Pandurang Chikne, in an order dated March 11th, 2024. The application, Criminal Bail Application No. 544 of 2024, was filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with C.R. No. 330/2022 registered with Navghar Police Station. The applicant was charged with serious economic offenses, including Sections 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 465 (Forgery), and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code. The court, presided over by Addl. Sessions Judge Shri V. M. Sundale, based the decision primarily on the completion of the investigation and the prolonged period of pre-trial detention.
The Allegation: Forged Documents for a False Flat Promise
The prosecution’s case alleged that the applicant, Rajesh Pandurang Chikne, a businessman, induced the informant to pay ₹44,00,000/- by promising to secure a flat for him under a MMRDA scheme. The cheating involved the applicant forging documents related to the flat and using them as genuine to convince the informant of the scheme’s authenticity. This fraudulent activity was confirmed after the Investigating Officer corresponded with the MMRDA, which established that the documents were bogus.
The applicant was arrested on May 10th, 2023, and had been in judicial custody since May 15th, 2023. The prosecution opposed the bail application, expressing concern that the applicant might pressurize prosecution witnesses or flee from justice.
Judicial Rationale: End of Investigation and Prolonged Custody
The court considered the arguments presented by the applicant’s counsel, Shri Govind Singh, and the Ld. APP Ms. Ratnavali Patil. Despite the prosecution’s concerns, the court found several compelling reasons to grant bail:
- Investigation Completed and Charge-sheet Filed: The court made the critical observation that the investigation of the offense is already completed, and the charge-sheet is filed. This means the applicant’s presence is no longer necessary for any investigative purpose, including custodial interrogation, as nothing was recovered from him during his initial police custody.
- Prolonged Detention: The applicant had been behind bars for more than 10 months since his arrest. The court noted that there were “no extra ordinary circumstances to keep the applicant behind bar for indefinite period.” The right to liberty was emphasized, especially in a case where the offense is not punishable with death.
- Local Resident: The court dismissed the apprehension of the applicant fleeing from justice, noting that he is a local resident and was ready to furnish surety.
- No Criminal Antecedents: Crucially, the prosecution did not place on record any information regarding the applicant’s past criminal antecedents.
The court concluded that the prosecution’s remaining apprehensions could be adequately managed by imposing certain stringent conditions.
Bail Conditions Imposed
The Criminal Bail Application No. 544 of 2024 was allowed. Rajesh Pandurang Chikne was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.
The bail was subject to the following key conditions:
- No Tampering: The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or pressurize any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- No Repetition: The applicant should not repeat such an offense in the future.
- Travel Restriction: The applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
- Provisional Cash Bail: The court allowed for provisional cash bail in the like amount for a period of four weeks, during which the applicant must furnish the formal surety, or the cash bail would stand forfeited.
This decision reflects the judiciary’s focus on the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is unwarranted, particularly once the police investigation is finalized and the evidence is secured.