Allowed

Ishtiyak Ahmad Irshad Ahmad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Nov 2021BA/2267/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant accused of forgery and obtaining a fake passport. The court held that investigation was complete, charge-sheet filed, and detention unnecessary, granting the bail application after relying on the parity principle established in other decisions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on bond of Rs. 20,000 with one or two sureties in like amount.

Ishtiyak Ahmad Irshad Ahmad Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

BA-1640-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2267 OF 2021

¶4

Ishtiyak Ahmad Irshad Ahmad

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

Mr. Mahendra N. Sandhyanshiv for the Applicant.
Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent -State.

¶10

CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.
 RESERVED ON : 18th NOVEMBER 2021
 PRONOUNCED ON : 26th NOVEMBER 2021

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1The present application has been moved by the applicant

¶13

under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime
No.I-36 of 2020 registered with Police Station Ayeshanagar,

¶14

Malegaon, Nashik, for offences punishable under Section 420,

¶15

465, 466, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),

¶16

Section 12(B) of the Passport Act, Rules 3 and 6 of Passport
(Passport into India) Rule, 1950, Clause 3(i) of Foreigner’s
Citizen Order, 1948, Section 14(2) of the Foreign Citizen Act,
1946 and Rule 2 of Report of Police Rule, 2001.

¶17

Trupti 1/5

¶18

BA-1640-2021.doc

¶19

2The prosecution case is that accused no.1, namely, Tahir Ali
Yusuf Ali, having citizenship of Bangladesh from 1st October 2020
till the filing of complaint with the help of other accused namely
Alam Amin Ansari, Shaikh Ashpak Shaikh Munaf Kureshi,
Ekhlaque Ahmed Mohd. Mustafa, Shaikh Imran Shaikh Rashid,
Iqbal Khan Munnir Khan, Lalit Nana Marathe, Zakir Ali Abdul
Majid Khan, Ishtiyak Ahmed Irshad Ahmed (present applicant),
Ullas Shankarro Mahale, Zahir Hashim Hashim Haniba and Nisar
Abdulla got false and forged documents prepared viz., (a)
Sheshan Card (SHE 7371388 (b) Birth Certificate issued by
Malegaon Municipal Corporataion, (c) Aadhar Card
No.400684104781 (d) Post Office Saving Accounts Pass Book A/
c. No.4908984806 etc. showing him to be resident of Malegaon
and on the basis of these documents prepared forged passport
bearing No.U5005595. In the wake of these allegations, the
applicant came to be arrested and the First Information Report
(FIR) was registered against all the abovenamed accused.

¶20

Trupti 2/5

¶21

BA-1640-2021.doc

¶22

3. Mr.Sandhyanshiv, learned counsel for the applicant-

¶23

accused, submits that the main accused is already admitted on
bail and the present applicant-accused is also similarly situated
and therefore, he deserves parity. Moreover, the charge-sheet has
already been filed. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served
by keeping the applicant-accused in jail. Learned Counsel also
placed on record the orders given by this Court in Zakir Ali
Abdul Majid Khan V/s. The State of Maharashtra1, Shaikh Imran
Shaikh Rashid Versus The State of Maharashtra2and Ulhas
Shankarrao Mahale Versus The State of Maharashtra3 in support
of the ground of parity.

¶24

4Per contra, Mrs. Shinde, learned APP, opposed the
submissions by contending that the applicant-accused was
knowing that the other accused namely, Alam Amin Ansari, was
Bangladeshi national and despite that the applicant along with
others illegally helped him for forging passport and other

¶25

documents. The nature of offence being serious, the application

¶26

1 Bail Application No. 1640 of 2021 dated 26^th October, 2021

¶27

2 Criminal Bail Application No. 2619 of 2021 dated 30^th September, 2021

¶28

3 Criminal Bail Application No. 580 of 2021 dated 7^th October, 2021

¶29

Trupti 3/5

¶30

BA-1640-2021.doc

¶31

deserves to be rejected, argued learned APP.

¶32

5I have gone through the investigation papers. Almost all the
statements recorded by the Investigating Officer are that of Police
personnel. It is also not in dispute that the investigation is over
and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The filing of the
charge-sheet itself shows the seizure of necessary documents
allegedly forged and fabricated by the applicant and other
accused. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, in my considered opinion, the detention of the applicant is
not necessary. Hence the following order :

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i)Applicant – Ishtiyak Ahmad Irshad Ahmad shall be released
on bail in C.R.No.I-36 of 2020 registered with Police Station
Ayeshanagar, Malegaon, Nashik, on his executing P.R.Bond in
the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in like
amount.

¶35

(ii)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted

¶36

Trupti 4/5

¶37

BA-1640-2021.doc

¶38

with facts of case and shall not tamper with prosecution
evidence.

¶39

(iii)The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on

¶40

the first Monday of every month, till the Charge is framed.

¶41

(iv)Parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated by the

¶42

Sheristedar of this Court.

¶43

(v)The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶44

(V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶45

Digitally signed by TRUPTI TRUPTI SADANAND SADANAND BAMNE BAMNE Date: 2021.11.26 18:58:03 +0530

¶46

Trupti 5/5

Ishtiyak Ahmad Irshad Ahmad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishtiyak Ahmad Irshad Ahmad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Maruti Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vikas Bhaurao Rokade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Nimba Memane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dada Nana Waghapure and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shamrao Vithal Tevare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Amrut Mohite Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Anr.