9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent in this case on 25th September, 2007 for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and 120B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and he remained in police custody for 15 days and thereafter now he is in judicial custody. 3. Vide order dated 18th October, 2007, the learned Spl. Judge has granted bail to the respondent. 4. The respondent had been found to have influenced the witnesses and fabricated evidence in order to mislead the investigation agency. Subsequent to his arrest, he had made a disclosure statement, pertaining to forgery of documents such as wills, bank instruments and property related documents for acquiring immovable assets in various benami names and laundering his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t interrogation and co-operated with petitioner's investigation. 6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Spl. Judge has passed the impugned bail order and the bail order discloses due application of judicial mind to the facts of material on record. It is neither cryptic nor based on any extraneous factors and as such cannot be said to be perverse. The present case does not pertain to an offence of a heinous nature. Where two views are possible, the view favoring the accused should be taken. It is denied that respondent had influenced the witnesses or had fabricated the evidence. The present petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed. 7. Learned Counsel for both the parties have advanced arguments at length. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that, the FIR was registered in the year 2005 whereas, the respondent has been arrested in the year 2007 and during all this period he co-operated with the investigation agency. After arrest, the respondent remained in police custody for a maximum period i.e. 15 days and all the investigation has been completed and the learned trial court has considered all these facts while granting bail and also has imposed certain conditions on the respondent. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed by the trial court is perverse and no ground is made out for cancellation of the bail. 12. It is well settled that while dealing with a bail appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he is likely to abscond or evade the process of law. The accused was admittedly in police custody for 15 days and the investigation by and large qua the applicant is complete; the accused had been taken to various places in India to confront him with the documentary as also other oral evidence; it is also not in dispute that the accused has furnished information on affidavits pursuant to the notices issued to him by the IO; it is also not the case of the prosecution that the applicant has not joined the investigation as and when he has been summoned. On the question of the apprehension of the prosecution about the possibility of tampering of evidence and the submission of ld. Spl. PP that some of the witnesses who are yet to be exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip of U.P till the time the witnesses stated to be stationed in the aforesaid places are examined by the IO. The applicant will also furnish an undertaking giving details of his complete whereabouts, his permanent place of stay, his contact numbers including his telephone and mobile numbers. It is further made clear that as and when accused changes his address, the same will be intimated to the court as also to the CBI. 14. Regarding cancellation of the bail under Section 439(2) CrPC, it is to be seen is whether the order granting bail was vitiated by any serious infirmity or not. It is well settled that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. Even where prima facie case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, the respondent has stated that in order to transfer certain properties, he plan to make a forged will and in order to prepare the will, he got stamp papers and got typed the contents of the will and forged the same. So, from the disclosure statement of the respondent recorded on 4th October, 2007 the forgery, if any, has already been committed by the respondent prior to his arrest and for that he will be charge sheeted as per law, if required. There is nothing on record to show that after the impugned order was passed, the respondent has made any attempt to tamper with the evidence or to influence the witnesses. 16. The respondent has been arrested in this case on 25th September, 2007 and he has remained in police custody for a maxi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
