The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, in a significant ruling on March 11th, 2024, granted regular bail to the applicant, Mr. Rajesh Pandurang Chikne, marking an end to his over ten months of pre-trial custody. The judicial decision, formalized in Criminal Bail Application No. 544 of 2024, sets a clear precedent for balancing the severity of economic offenses with the accused’s constitutional right to liberty, especially after the completion of the police investigation. Mr. Chikne was charged under multiple stringent sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 465 (Forgery), and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), in connection with C.R. No. 330/2022 registered at Navghar Police Station. The court, led by Addl. Sessions Judge Shri V. M. Sundale, ultimately prioritized the principles of prolonged custody and investigation finalization over the prosecution’s apprehension of witness tampering.
The Allegations: Forgery and Fraud in a Housing Scheme
The case against the applicant centered on a high-value fraud scheme. Mr. Chikne, identified as a businessman, allegedly induced the informant to pay a substantial sum of ₹44,00,000/- by promising him a flat under a purported MMRDA housing scheme. The core of the deception involved the creation and presentation of forged documents related to the flat, which the applicant then used as genuine to solicit the money and perpetuate the fraud. The fraudulent nature of the documents was later officially confirmed when the Investigating Officer contacted the MMRDA, which declared the papers to be bogus. The applicant was arrested on May 10th, 2023, and subsequently remained in judicial custody for a significant period.
Judicial Scrutiny: Why Detention Was No Longer Justified
During the bail hearing, the prosecution, through the Learned APP, strongly resisted the application. They argued that given the applicant’s non-cooperation with the investigation and the seriousness of the forgery and cheating, releasing him would lead to the pressurization of prosecution witnesses and the possibility of him fleeing from justice. However, the court systematically dismantled the necessity of continued pre-trial detention by focusing on the legal status of the case. The most compelling factor was the fact that the investigation was already completed and the charge-sheet had been filed. This crucial procedural step eliminated the police’s need for the applicant’s presence for any further custodial interrogation or recovery, effectively nullifying a primary justification for his incarceration.
The court also took judicial notice of the applicant’s prolonged detention—more than ten months behind bars. It stressed that the object of custody is to secure the accused’s presence for trial, not to inflict punishment prematurely. Furthermore, the court found no extraordinary circumstances that warranted keeping the applicant behind bars indefinitely, especially as the crime was not one punishable with death. Addressing the prosecution’s fear of flight, the court noted that Mr. Chikne was a local resident of Thane and was prepared to abide by all court-imposed conditions, making him unlikely to abscond. Crucially, the prosecution failed to place on record any substantial evidence of the applicant’s past criminal antecedents, further weighing the decision in favor of granting bail.
Conditions of Liberty: Securing Justice While Granting Freedom
In balancing the right to liberty with the necessity of a fair trial, the court allowed the application but imposed stringent conditions. Rajesh Pandurang Chikne was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹50,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount.
To mitigate the remaining risk factors cited by the prosecution, the following conditions were set: the applicant is strictly prohibited from directly or indirectly pressurizing or threatening any person acquainted with the case facts; he must not leave India without the court’s prior permission; and he is explicitly warned not to repeat such an offense in the future. Significantly, the court also included a provision for provisional cash bail of ₹50,000/- for a period of four weeks, demonstrating a judicial commitment to ensuring the applicant’s swift release while allowing time for the formal surety paperwork to be completed. The judgment stands as a powerful reminder that once an investigation is finalized, prolonged detention turns from a necessary tool for law enforcement into a violation of fundamental rights.