Sangeeta Anil Daspute vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the applicants have made out a case for relief under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The Court noted that the core of the investigation, as revealed by the complaint and the correspondence relied upon by the prosecution, pertains to the verification of the authenticity of the documents submitted by the applicants. The Court acknowledged that the applicants have attended the police station and submitted documents as per the investigating officer's requisitions. While the prosecution argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to find the source of fabrication, the Court found that the investigation primarily revolved around document verification. The Court also noted that the applicants have submitted further documents to support their claims of genuine submissions and have cooperated with the investigation. Considering the nature of the allegations, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage. The interim protection granted to the applicants was confirmed, and they were released on bail with specific conditions, including reporting to the police station monthly and not leaving India without prior court permission. The interim applications for intervention were also allowed.

Facts

This judgment concerns two anticipatory bail applications (ABA No. 1612 of 2024 and ABA No. 1857 of 2024) filed by Sangeeta Anil Daspute (accused no. 2) and Janardhan Vitthal Chandane (accused no. 1) respectively. The applications seek pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 198/2024, registered on June 3, 2024, at MRA Marg Police Station. The FIR alleges offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including forgery and cheating. The primary allegation against the applicants is the submission of forged and fabricated experience certificates to secure a tender contract for providing drivers for ambulances. The complainant, who also operates in the same business, was unable to participate in the tender process due to technical difficulties and subsequently filed the complaint. The tender process has since been cancelled.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants have made out a case for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of submitting forged documents for securing a tender contract? The petitioner's (applicant's) arguments are that the allegations primarily concern the verification of documents, and they have cooperated with the investigation by submitting all requested documents. For Sangeeta Daspute, it is argued that a letter from Hansa City Bus Services confirms the experience certificate, and records from the Registrar of Companies show Noble Pharma is in existence. It is also contended that the Maharashtra Krushi Udyog Vikas Mahamandal and St. Dominic’s Ashram refused verification letters due to police threats. For Janardhan Chandane, it is argued that GST registration and ESIC payment receipts have been submitted, and the allegation regarding a false turnover certificate from A.R.R. Associates is disputed. Both applicants maintain that custodial interrogation is not necessary as the investigation pertains only to document verification. The respondent State's arguments, as presented by the learned APP, are that investigation has revealed forged documents, and correspondence with institutions confirms fabrication. The State contends that custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain the source of the forged documents and that the applicants secured the work order based on these fabricated documents. The intervener supports the State's position, arguing that submitting forged documents for a government contract is a grave offence and custodial interrogation is required to find the source of the forgery.