Mumbai, India – April 28, 2022 – A Session Court in Mumbai today rejected the bail application of Jagdish Shrivastav, aged 51, in connection with a case of alleged forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy registered at Dadar Police Station (C.R. No. 896/2021). The court, presided over by His Honour Additional Sessions Judge M. G. Deshpande, found that a strong prima facie case exists against Shrivastav, particularly concerning allegations of forging official documents and impersonating a municipal employee to defraud victims.

The Allegations: A Pattern of Deception

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Pushpalata Nana Khandare on November 28, 2021 (the order mentions 28.11.2022, but given the application date, 2021 is likely the correct year). Khandare stated that she had known Jagdish Shrivastav (Applicant No. 1) for many years. In 2018, Shrivastav and another individual (referred to as Applicant No. 2, though only Shrivastav is the applicant in this bail plea) allegedly sought Rs. 7 lakhs from her for his mother’s medical treatment. This amount was never returned. A cheque for Rs. 4 lakhs was issued but subsequently dishonored.

Later, Shrivastav allegedly induced Khandare into a fraudulent property deal, promising to secure two rooms from the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) at a reduced price, through which she could recover her Rs. 7 lakhs. Shrivastav and his alleged accomplice showed forged documents related to Room No. 504, Building No. 13/01, at Dharmaveer Nagar, Thane, claiming it belonged to their relatives. They extracted Rs. 10 lakhs from Khandare for registration fees and payments to “certain officers.”

Subsequently, Shrivastav allegedly convinced Khandare to purchase his flat in Badlapur for Rs. 30 lakhs, despite its market value being Rs. 40 lakhs, claiming he was in dire need of money. Khandare paid Rs. 13 lakhs for this, bringing the total extracted amount to Rs. 30 lakhs. While Rs. 1,66,500/- was returned, the balance of Rs. 28,33,500/- remained unpaid, and neither the promised rooms nor the Badlapur flat were handed over. The FIR details these extensive allegations of cheating and forgery.

Judicial History: From Anticipatory Bail to Supreme Court

The court noted a significant history of attempts by Jagdish Shrivastav and his wife, Jayshree Jagdish Shrivastav, to secure pre-arrest bail.

• Their initial Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 2674/2021) before the Sessions Court was rejected on January 13, 2022.
• They then approached the Bombay High Court (A.B.A. No. 158/2022), which also rejected their application on January 20, 2022.
• Finally, they filed a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 1758/2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, observing that the petitioners had already been taken into custody on March 8, 2022, disposed of the SLP but granted them liberty to file a regular bail application, directing the trial court to consider the alleged non-compliance of Section 41A Cr.P.C. (notice before arrest) and dispose of the post-arrest bail application expeditiously. This current bail application was filed in that context.

Grounds for Bail and Prosecution’s Opposition

Mr. Prem Kumar R. Pandey, the learned advocate for the applicant, presented several grounds for bail, including:

• Alleged non-application of mind by the lower court in granting police custody.
• Claims that the main allegations are against his wife, with Jagdish Shrivastav having no role.
• Delay in lodging the FIR.
• Arguments that the ingredients of forgery were not met.
• Assertion that he had already returned Rs. 4,66,500/- against a Rs. 3 lakh loan.
• Contention that the first informant’s modus operandi was to advance sums and coerce exorbitant repayments.
• Statements that alleged forged documents were already seized, and nothing further was to be recovered.

Mrs. Rashmi Tendulkar, the Ld. Addl. P.P., strongly opposed the bail, asserting that the cheated amount is yet to be recovered. She argued that granting bail would enable the accused to repeat the crime, threaten witnesses, and that his wife is also a habitual offender in similar crimes. She also highlighted that the applicant impersonated a Municipal Corporation employee, and the investigation is still ongoing. Mr. Tushhar Khandare, Ld. Adv. for the Intervener (the informant), also filed written notes supporting the prosecution.

Court’s Findings: Prima Facie Case of Forgery and Cheating

Judge Deshpande meticulously reviewed the arguments, FIR details, and investigation papers.

• Ongoing Investigation: The court noted that the investigation is still in progress and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed.
• Impersonation: The investigation papers prima facie support the prosecution’s contention that Shrivastav impersonated a Municipal Corporation employee, leading victims, including the informant, to believe him and get cheated.
• Direct Involvement: The court rejected Shrivastav’s argument that the main offense was committed by his wife and he had no role, questioning why he issued a dishonored cheque to the informant if he wasn’t involved.
• Forged Documents: Crucially, the investigation revealed that a letter dated September 20, 2019, purportedly issued by Thane Municipal Corporation in the name of Swapnali Tambitkar for Room No. 504, Building No. 13/A, was forged. Letters from TMC unequivocally confirmed that no such allotment was made, and the stamp and signature on the document were fake. The court found this as “definite material against the applicant,” establishing a “strong prima-facie case of forgery of stamp and signature, which is very serious offence.”
• Conspiracy and Antecedents: The court found that the applicant could not “rescue himself by putting gun on the shoulder of his wife,” as the documents and the act of issuing a refund cheque indicated his direct involvement. It also considered the “serious similar antecedents” against both the applicant and his wife, concluding that granting bail at this stage, with the investigation in progress, would interfere with the probe.
• Previous Rejections: The court emphasized that both the Sessions Court and the High Court had previously rejected their anticipatory bail pleas, and the Supreme Court’s order simply granted liberty to file a regular bail application without commenting on the merits of the case.
• Section 41A Cr.P.C. Compliance: Regarding the Supreme Court’s observation on Section 41A Cr.P.C. compliance, the court clarified that given the seriousness of the offense, particularly under Section 467 IPC, which carries a punishment of up to life imprisonment or 10 years, custodial interrogation is necessary and Section 41A Cr.P.C. would not impede arrest in such a serious case.

Judge Deshpande concluded that the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case for bail.

Order

Based on these findings, the court passed the following order:

Bail Application No. 700 of 2022 stands rejected.