Rajan Gupta, J.
Crl. Misc. No. 44057 of 2010:
1. This is an application for placing on record Additional Affidavit of the petitioner as well as Annexures P-9 to P-14 and also for placing on record true photocopy of Annexure P-12. Application is allowed as prayed for. Additional affidavit of the petitioner and Annexures P-9 to P-14 are taken on record.
Crl. Misc. No. M-23493 of 2010:
2. This is a petition u/s 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Samrala, District Khanna.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, father of the complainant Mahan Singh was having business relations with the petitioner and petitioner advanced loan to him from time to time. According to him, there was no reason for the petitioner to forge the signatures of said Mahan Singh.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail on the ground that the petitioner has obtained signatures of Mahan Singh on a blank paper. The agreement had been written thereon subsequently. On the basis of the same, a civil suit was also filed by the petitioner before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samrala. According to him, petitioner is the main accused being beneficiary of the agreement. He submits that in view of the seriousness of allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned Counsel for the complainant has reiterated the submissions made by the State counsel. He submits that agreement, Annexure P-2, entered into by the brothers of Mahan Singh, annexed with the petition, is on a stamp paper while agreement dated 10th February, 2009, Annexure P-1 is on a normal paper where signatures of Mahan Singh were already there. He has also pointed out material difference in terms and conditions of agreement.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
7. It is evident that in the FIR, it has been alleged that the petitioner had filed a civil suit in the civil court at Samrala on the basis of certain forged documents, purported to have been signed by father of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that when copies of the suit were obtained from the civil court, it was found that the signatures on the same had been forged by Ravinder Singh Sokhy (petitioner herein). It appears that petitioner is the main accused as it is he, who stands to benefit from the agreement, Annexure P-1.
8. In view of the seriousness of allegations contained in the FIR, particularly that the petitioner placed reliance upon a forged document for filing a civil suit before the court at Samrala, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
