The Court of City Civil and Sessions at Greater Bombay, in an order delivered on May 6th, 2024, granted regular bail to Sudhir Raghavendra Nayak in connection with a case of attempted bank fraud and forgery. The decision in Criminal Bail Application No. 1123 of 2024 addressed a complaint filed by the Union Bank of India and stemmed from Crime No. 347/2024, registered at Pydhonie Police Station, for offenses under Sections 420 (Cheating), 465 (Forgery), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), and 474 (Possessing document knowing it to be forged) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additional Sessions Judge Shri N. P. Tribhuwan ruled that, given the nature of the offense, the recovery of fabricated documents, and the accused’s lack of criminal antecedents, his further detention was unnecessary, and liberty could be secured through reasonable conditions.
The Allegation: Forged Cheque Book Application
The case was initiated by a complaint lodged by Nirajkumar Malkit Singh, a Senior Manager at the Union Bank of India. The incident unfolded in two parts, highlighting a sophisticated, albeit unsuccessful, attempt to fraudulently obtain a cheque book for an account belonging to S. T. G. Enterprises. The first suspicious event occurred on April 5th, 2024, when an unknown person submitted an application for a new cheque book on a letterhead supposedly from S. T. G. Enterprises. Shortly thereafter, a second person, claiming to be from the same company, inquired about the cheque book’s readiness. The clerk’s confusion prompted the second person to deny submitting the initial application, confirming the first was fraudulent, leading the bank to withhold the cheque book.
The critical incident involving the applicant, Sudhir Raghavendra Nayak, took place on April 16th, 2024. Mr. Nayak appeared at the bank and submitted another application for a cheque book, again using the S. T. G. Enterprises letterhead. The vigilant complainant, entertaining doubt, called the actual proprietor of the company, who confirmed that Mr. Nayak was not affiliated with S. T. G. Enterprises and that the letterhead, signature, and seal were “false and fabricated.” Mr. Nayak was subsequently detained by the security guard and handed over to the police.
Judicial Rationale: Recovery and Absence of History
The prosecution opposed the bail, acknowledging that while the applicant had admitted to the offense, the investigation was still incomplete. The police submitted that they still needed to investigate from whom the accused had the seal and letterhead prepared, and that the applicant’s sample signature remained to be obtained for examination by a handwriting expert. The prosecution argued that releasing him could lead to him absconding or tampering with evidence.
The applicant’s counsel, Mr. Mahendra Patnekar, countered by stating that the accused had been in custody since April 16th, 2024, the investigation was “as good as completed,” and the alleged documents were already recovered from his possession.
The court’s final determination leaned heavily on these facts. Judge Tribhuwan noted that the offense was not punishable with life imprisonment or death sentence. Crucially, the Investigating Officer had already recovered the alleged fabricated application, seal, and letterhead. Coupled with the fact that the accused has no criminal antecedent, the court found that the need for further custodial interrogation was minimal. The apprehension of the police regarding investigation and flight could be adequately addressed through the imposition of reasonable conditions. The judge concluded that, in light of the nature of the offense and the status of the evidence, it was desirable to release the accused on bail.
Conditions Imposed for Conditional Freedom
The court allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 1123 of 2024. Sudhir Raghavendra Nayak was ordered to be released on a Personal Bond (P.B.) of ₹20,000/- and required to furnish one or more sureties in the like amount.
To ensure cooperation with the ongoing investigation and prevent evidence tampering, the court imposed the following strict conditions: The accused shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation. He is mandated to attend the concerned Police Station on every alternate Monday between 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for a period of three months or till the filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier. Furthermore, he must inform the Investigating Officer of his latest residence and mobile details and appear before the Court regularly on all given dates. This conditional release acknowledges the accused’s right to liberty while maintaining judicial control over the investigation process.