Danish Rafique Khan vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court granted bail to the Applicant. While acknowledging a prima facie case against the Applicant, the Court considered several mitigating factors. It noted that all the cars purchased fraudulently had been recovered, and some had already been returned to their rightful claimants. The Court also took into account that the Applicant was already on bail in two other criminal cases and had not been arrested in connection with crimes registered in Delhi. The prosecution had cited 25 witnesses, indicating that the trial would likely take a considerable amount of time to conclude. Furthermore, the Court observed that a co-accused had been released on bail by the Supreme Court. The Applicant was directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with sureties, mark attendance at the police station twice a month, regularly attend court proceedings, and not leave Maharashtra until the conclusion of cases registered there, though permitted to attend trials in other states. He was also ordered to deposit Rs. 7,50,000/- in the trial court within one week of release, without prejudice to his defense. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and should not influence the trial court's decision on guilt.

Facts

The Applicant, Danish Rafique Khan, sought bail in a criminal case registered for offences including cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged a criminal conspiracy to defraud individuals with good CIBIL scores by forging KYC documents, obtaining properties on rent, fabricating ownership documents, and creating bogus GST certificates and income tax returns to secure loans from financial institutions. The total fraud amount was stated to be Rs. 5,24,69,124/-. The Applicant claimed to be a car dealer who merely sold cars purchased fraudulently and asserted his innocence. He highlighted that all fraudulently purchased cars had been recovered, some were returned to rightful claimants, and he was on bail in two other cases. The Applicant had been in jail for over 15 months, and the trial was expected to take time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail, considering the prima facie case against him, the recovery of all fraudulently purchased vehicles, his prior bail status in other cases, and the likely delay in trial conclusion? Petitioner's Arguments: Mr. Lalla, for the Applicant, argued that the Applicant, as a car dealer, was not involved in the preparation of forged documents for loan acquisition. He contended that the Applicant was falsely implicated, and all 10 cars purchased fraudulently had been recovered. He emphasized the Applicant's detention for over 15 months, the framing of charges, and the anticipated delay in trial. Furthermore, the Applicant offered to voluntarily deposit Rs. 7,50,000/- towards the alleged wrongful loss, without prejudice to his rights. Revenue's Arguments: Ms. Shinde, for the State, opposed bail, arguing that the offence involved a criminal conspiracy defrauding multiple financing institutions of over Rs. 5 Crores. She stated there was sufficient material to show the Applicant's involvement and pointed to similar cases registered against him. The State expressed concern that the Applicant, being a resident of Madhya Pradesh, might abscond or commit similar offences.