The Court of Session for Greater Bombay, in a decisive ruling on April 12th, 2024, granted regular bail to the applicant, Shashi Kiran T R, in connection with a major case involving allegations of forgery and cheating. The bail application, Criminal Bail Application No. 930 of 2024, arose from C.R. No. 10/2024 (corresponding to C.R. No. 51/2024 of Andheri Police Station) registered by the DCB CID, Unit-XI, Mumbai. The applicant was charged under multiple stringent sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 420 (Cheating), 465, 467, 468, 471, 472 (all related to various forms of forgery and possessing forged seals/documents), and 34 (Common intention). Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne ruled that since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, the continued pre-trial incarceration was unwarranted.
The Allegations: A Forged ₹100 Crore Investment Scheme
The prosecution’s case detailed a complex financial fraud. The primary accusation was that co-accused Rajesh Shetty represented to the informant that the present applicant, Shashi Kiran T R, had received a massive sum of ₹100 crores. To secure the release of this large amount, it was falsely claimed that funds were required to pay “taxes” and bribes to “officers of the RBI.” Rajesh Shetty, acting as an agent or mediator, induced the informant and other investors to pay ₹20 lakhs, promising them exorbitant returns from the alleged ₹100 crore sum.
The police investigation, which led to the arrest of the primary accused and the applicant, revealed the use of highly elaborate forged documents to substantiate the scheme. From the possession of co-accused Rajesh Shetty, the police recovered forged documents, including a Zink Metal Corporation agreement, various reports, testing reports, an alleged Certificate of RBI, and bank documents. The prosecution contended that all these documents were created by the accused, including Shashi Kiran T R, with the help of a person named Ravikumar. The present applicant, whose name appeared on the forged documents, was arrested on January 30th, 2024.
Judicial Reasoning: Investigation Finalized and No Antecedents
The applicant’s counsel, Adv. Ajay Dube, strongly asserted that the applicant was innocent, falsely implicated, and had no criminal antecedents. He highlighted that the applicant was the sole earning member of his family and was a permanent resident of his Karnataka address. Crucially, the defense emphasized that custodial interrogation was complete and the investigation was over, with the charge sheet already filed.
The prosecution, represented by APP Iqbal Solkar, opposed the bail, citing the standard grounds that the accused might flee from justice, threaten witnesses, or tamper with evidence, particularly given the magnitude of the alleged ₹100 crore fraud.
However, the Additional Sessions Judge’s decision hinged entirely on the procedural status of the case. The court unequivocally stated that since the investigation is completed and the Charge Sheet is already filed, the rationale for pre-trial incarceration is unwarranted. The primary investigative need for detention—custodial interrogation and evidence recovery—had been satisfied, especially since the police had recovered the applicant’s mobile handset, SIM card, and PAN card. The court determined that the apprehension of the accused fleeing could be effectively managed by imposing reasonable conditions securing his presence for the trial.
Conditions of Release and Securing Presence
The court accordingly allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 930 of 2024. Shashi Kiran T R was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a Personal Bond (P.B.) and a Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹30,000/- with one or two sureties. The conditions imposed were designed to ensure his presence throughout the judicial proceedings and to prevent interference with the trial process:
The applicant is strictly prohibited from tampering with the prosecution witnesses and evidence in any manner. He is required to attend every date of the case till the conclusion of the trial, unless specifically exempted by the court. Furthermore, the applicant must furnish details of his contact number and current address to the investigating officer and undertake to intimate any change in these details immediately. Most significantly, the applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. This judicial approach confirms that even in complex financial fraud cases, the fundamental right to liberty prevails once the prosecution has gathered all necessary evidence and the trial phase is set to begin.