2021 (11) TMI 1091 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - grant of bail opposed to the petitioner on the ground that he and his co-accused have forged judgments and decrees of a Court and that too for at least 187 persons - HELD THAT - In a magisterial trial, the petitioner is in custody since 07.04.2021; investigation qua the petitioner is complete and therefore, neither is the petitioner needed for the same nor can he influence it; the main allegation with regard to forging of judgments and decrees is against co-accused Jaidev Singla and Nitesh (since dead); there is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner; no further recovery is also required to be made from him; co-accused Govind, who had approached this Court through CRM-M-31235-2021 Govind vs. State of Haryana 2021 (9) TMI 1421 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT has been granted regular bail by this Court and that the petitioner's trial in which 13 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution is yet to begin and therefore it is likely to take a long time to conclude. The present case is considered to be a fit one in which the petitioner be directed to be released on regular bail - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving forgery of judgments and decrees for change in date of birth and other particulars.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in FIR No.329 dated 13.11.2020, which involved offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, with additional sections added later. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, couriered and executed forged documents in the office of the Education Board, Haryana, based on suspicious judgments and decrees passed by a Civil Judge. Investigations revealed that the documents were forged, involving a total of 187 persons. The main allegations of forgery were against co-accused Jaidev Singla and Nitesh, with the petitioner accused of facilitating the execution of the forged documents for a commission.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated, with the only evidence against him being an inadmissible disclosure statement of a co-accused made in police custody. It was highlighted that the investigation regarding the petitioner was complete, and no further recovery was required. Co-accused Govind had already been granted bail, and the trial, where no witness cited by the prosecution had been examined, was expected to be prolonged.

On the other hand, the State counsel opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense involving the forgery of judgments and decrees for a significant number of individuals. However, considering that the petitioner had been in custody since 07.04.2021, the completion of the investigation, the absence of any other pending criminal case, and the fact that the main allegations were against deceased co-accused, the Court found it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail, subject to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Bhiwani. It was clarified that the decision to grant bail was specific to the current application and did not imply an opinion on the case's merits.