In cases of financial fraud involving multiple accused, the court’s task is to distinguish the primary actors from those with peripheral or secondary roles. The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay, in its order dated May 2, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1029 of 2024, granted bail to the applicant, Wasim Yasin Shaikh, in a high-value cheating and criminal breach of trust case. The applicant was accused in C.R. No. 43/2024 registered at Vakola Police Station, facing charges under Sections 420 (Cheating), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 504, 506, and 120(B) (Criminal Conspiracy) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The core allegation was that the applicant and co-accused misappropriated Rs. 50,00,000/− from the informant after promising to supply mobile handsets at a lower price. The court’s decision hinged on the relative severity of the role attributed to the applicant, the completion of his custodial interrogation, and the lack of a recovery requirement.
The Discrepancy in Alleged Role
The prosecution, represented by Learned APP Ms. Ratnavali Patil, opposed the application, stating the offence was serious, the investigation was ongoing, and that some of the defrauded amount was traced to the applicant’s account. They raised the standard concerns of pressurizing witnesses, committing similar offenses, and fleeing from justice.
However, the defense, led by Learned Advocate Shri Sagar Rane, successfully argued for a mitigated role. The defense contended that the applicant was merely an employee of the co-accused, Ashfak Ali Shaikh, and had “no concern with the alleged transaction” between the informant and Ashfak Ali Shaikh.
The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Shri V. M. Sundale, carefully scrutinized the FIR and the record. The court acknowledged that the main allegations of accepting the Rs. 50 lakh and failing to supply the mobile phones were against the co-accused, Ashfak Ali Shaikh. The FIR did name the applicant and alleged he and other co-accused were partners running a business called A.S. Enterprises Company, which conflicted with the defense’s claim that he was merely an employee. Despite this discrepancy regarding his exact relationship to the co-accused—partner or employee—the court’s focus shifted to his actions.
Judicial Rationale for Granting Bail
The court’s rationale for granting bail was primarily based on three key factors:
- Completion of Custodial Interrogation: The court noted that the applicant was arrested on March 22, 2024, and had spent eight days in police custody followed by judicial custody, amounting to over a month in jail. The court determined that “The presence of the applicant is not necessary for any recovery or discovery” and that the initial phase of the investigation concerning him was over.
- Peripheral Role in the Main Offense: The court implicitly accepted that the most culpable acts—the acceptance of the huge sum and the breach of contract—were primarily the acts of the main co-accused. The applicant’s role, even if as a partner, appeared secondary to the principal transaction involving Rs. 50 lakh.
- Lack of Extra-ordinary Circumstances: The court found “no extra ordinary circumstances to keep the applicant behind bar” simply to allow the remaining part of the investigation to be completed. Furthermore, the record showed nothing regarding past criminal antecedents of the applicant, thus weakening the prosecution’s fear of him committing similar offenses.
By prioritizing the completion of the custodial phase and the absence of a recovery requirement over the general seriousness of the offence, the court concluded that the apprehensions placed on record by the investigating officer can be taken care of by imposing certain conditions.
Conditions for Conditional Liberty
Accordingly, the court allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 1029 of 2024, ordering the release of Wasim Yasin Shaikh on his executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/− with one or two sureties of the like amount.
Stringent conditions were imposed to mitigate the risk of flight and tampering:
- The applicant was directed to attend the Vakola police station once a week (every Wednesday between 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) until the charge-sheet is filed.
- He must not leave India without the prior permission of the court.
- He was explicitly prohibited from making any inducement, threat, or pressure to dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the court.
The court also allowed for provisional cash bail in the like amount for a period of four weeks, allowing him sufficient time to arrange for the surety. This balanced judgment showcases the judiciary’s approach: liberty is the rule, detention the exception, especially after the immediate needs of the investigation have been met.