0

The Bombay HC orders interrogation on advocate for fraudulent activities while issuing bail.

TITLE : Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Sarang V. Kotwal

DATE :  3rd  January 2024

CITATION : Anticipatory bail application No. 3699 of 2023

FACTS

The applicant was seeking anticipatory bail under Section 420, 466 ,465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC. The offence committed was considered to be extremely serious. The main offence was punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The applicant is a lawyer who has assured the informant of the crime that a bail would be granted and took Rs.65000 as fees. The presiding officer upon receiving application has given bail for Rs.25000. Subsequenlty, the amount was paid by the informant. The prison officials at thane told the informant that the envelope did not contain the receipt for 25000 and the documents were incomplete. The applicant then sent another envelope which was not returned for. The same was done for twice again. Upon enquiry, the informant realized she was being cheated by the applicant.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 466 of IPC :

  1. Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.

 Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

ISSUES

Whether the applicant is guilty of the offence under Section 466 of IPC

JUDGEMENT

The court disagreed with the contentions of the counsel of the applicant that there was no fraudulent intention. “In fact, her act cannot be described in any other manner but ‘dishonest’ and ‘fraudulent’. The court said that the informant could have pursued the bail application of her husband accordance with law.

The court stated that being an advocate the applicant must not have cheated the informant and held that no leniency can be shown. The court further observed that there might be a strong possibility of a continuous offence and ordered for custodial interrogation against the applicant.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0

The High Court of Gujarat discarded the matter to grant anticipatory bail to the Accused of Impersonation in the exam – Candidates Burn Their Midnight Oil to Secure Government Jobs

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 18552 of 2023

Case Title : AJAYRAJ @ VIJENDRASINH KIRODILAL MEENA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

CORAM: Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar

Appearance

Applicant : Mr. HB CHAMPAVAT

Respondent: MS SHRUTI PATHAK

Introduction

In the current evolution, the High Court of Gujrat situated at Ahemadabad has declined the anticipatory bail to a petitioner accused of forgery and cheating in the competitive government examination for the post of clerk.

The above-mentioned case which dates back to 2014 has lifted questions about the applicant’s asserted involvement in creating forged documents and Impersonation.

Facts of the case

The Investigation papers reflect that the offence was committed in the year 2014 and the FIR and charge sheet were filed in the year 2016 however, the applicant is absconding to date i.e. since last more than 7 years.

the applicant is facing a serious charge of the offense of forgery according to which the applicant created forged documents and appeared in a competitive examination for the post of Clerk by adopting illegal means on behalf of some other person. So far the competitive examination is concerned, with misconduct, misbehavior, malpractices, and cheating.

The advocate for the applicant submitted that the present applicant is falsely enrolled in the offense and has nothing to do with the offense. Further, the applicant has not played any active role insofar as an offense of forgery in the FIR. The alleged offence took place in the year 2014 whereas the FIR was filed in the year 2016 based on a private FSL report. Further, the applicant is shown as an absconder in the charge sheet but the police have never visited the place of the present applicant. Further, the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate and join the investigation.

 

It is observed that as the accused remained absconder for 7 years, this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction in favor of the applicant. – Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar

Analysis by the court

Seriousness of the Offense: The court highlighted the seriousness of the charges, especially in the context of malpractices in competitive examinations. Quoting a previous Supreme Court decision, it emphasized the need to curb malpractices and maintain high educational standards.

The court considers the seriousness of the charge prima facie involvement of the accused and the possibility of tempering with pieces of evidence, The court finds that it will not be proper to use discretion in favor of the applicant accordingly.

the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

The rule is hereby discharged.           

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By

Kaulav Roychowdhury

Click to view the judgement

0

Delhi High Dismissed the Anticipatory bail due to the nature of gravity of offences committed.

Title: RAKESH KUMAR vs State (GNCTD)

Reserved on: 17.05.2023

Pronounced on: 14.07.2023

+ BAIL APPLN. 1571/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

Introduction

Delhi High Dismissed the anticipatory bail filed under section 438 of CrPC on the grounds of nature of gravity of offence.

Facts of the case

The prosecution’s assertion of the case’s facts is that the complainants are the actual and legal owners of the subject property, which is identified as C-132 (Old Number: C-143) Plot No. 1-2, Amar Colony, Block C, East Gokul Pur, Delhi, and totals 345 square yards of ground.

As stated GPA dated 18.09.2019 had been recorded in Register No. 1774, Book No. 4, Volume No. 1 at the Sub Registrar’s Office in Vivek Vihar, New Delhi. It is also said that the complainant, Jai Prakash Pal, is claiming ownership of an additional 105 square yards of the subject property with the parcel number C-132 through his daughter Sarita, who acquired it under a GPA and agreement to sell dated 12.09.2001. According to Register No. 1775, Book No. 4, Volume No. 266 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi, the GPA in favour of Jai Prakash Pal from his daughter Sarita has also been recorded.

It is claimed that Jiten Mahajan, the complainant, became the owner of the subject property as a result of a GPA that his father, Sukhdev Raj Mahajan, allegedly completed in his favour for land having the number C-132 and measuring 240 square yards in Plot No. 1-2, Khasra No. 796/705/2, Block C, Amar Colony, East Gokul Pur. Furthermore, it is stated that the complainant’s father issued a gift deed and a possession letter/will in his favour regarding the aforementioned property.

The complainants contend that they learned that the accused and his friends were attempting to interfere with their control of the property in question and had already inhabited it. After the incident was reported, the current case, FIR No. 283/2023, was created.

Analysis of the court

It should be noted right away that there is no disagreement regarding the identity of the property in question, despite the petitioner’s learned senior counsel’s contentions that the Khasra Nos. are different and the properties are different properties during the course of the arguments. However, according to the petitioner’s paperwork, the properties in question are the identical ones for which the current FIR has been lodged against the petitioner.

According to the petitioner, the property in question was sold by him on 29.12.2022 to four persons by way of sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- but the petitioner has not even placed a single document on record in regard to this money transaction and has even failed to submit as to how this amount was paid to him by the buyers of the property in question.

Conveyance deed dated 3.11.2022, according to DDA, is a falsified document. On the basis of this conveyance document, the petitioner later sold the property against a registered sale deed. On the same date, 12.01.2023, Deputy Director (PC-104) of PM-UDAY notified the SHO of PS Laxmi Nagar about the forged and fabricated conveyance deed dated 03.11.2022 in favour of the present petitioner using the name and style of DDA. Even DDA had cancelled the forged conveyance deed dated 03.11.2022 that is in the name of the petitioner herein.

The petitioner has relied on GPA dated 26.08.1994, GPA dated 06.02.1985, GPA dated 10.07.1985, and GPA dated 30.05.1989 to establish the title to the property in his favour. The petitioner has also cited a sales agreement signed by Smt. Rewti Dass on May 30, 1989. The examination of these documents reveals that they have been notarized, but the notary’s seal is not legible, and even the name, enrollment number, and registered number have not been mentioned on these notarized documents. In these circumstances, the petitioner must be interrogated in custody to uncover the conspiracy and learn how these documents were notarized, as well as whether a particular notary is in existence and whether the entries are present with the notarial seal.

The FIR against the petitioner has been lodged under Sections 420/467/468/471/447/448/120B/34 IPC, and the maximum punishment is up to life in prison. The charges against the petitioner are grave and serious in character. Because there is no evidence supporting bail, the application is denied.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to view the judgement

0

The Punjab High Court grants conditional anticipatory bail under the accusation of Sections 406, 498-A IPC.

TITLE – Vaneet Sachdeva and Diksha v State of Punjab

Decided On-:  May 12, 2023

CRM-M-10868-2023 and CRM-M-20326-2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Gurbir Singh

INTRODUCTION – 

Anticipatory bail was granted in accordance with the law and the terms laid down by the Hon’ble Court. Failure to cooperate by the respected party will result in consequences.

  FACTS OF THE CASE

The FIR in question was filed at the request of one Yashika Sachdeva against her husband Vaneet Sachdeva (petitioner in CRM-M10868-2023) and Diksha 11.05.2022, during which the complainant received calls and messages on her mobile phone. She was startled to discover her obscene videos and objectionable photographs with her husband Vaneet Sachdeva on her Instagram ID by co-accused Diksha, which her husband had created by deceiving her with the intent of blackmailing her from the start. When she spoke to the petitioner Diksha, she began hurling insults and threatening her. Previously, the complainant had filed a police complaint against her husband and inlaws, and as a result, the police registered a FIR under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana. The complainant also stated in the complaint that Diksha was having illicit relations with her husband Vaneet Sachdeva and that her husband had given indecent videos and photographs of the complainant to Diksha, who was blackmailing and threatening her.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the aforementioned video was created by the complainant herself, but after the FIR was filed, the State reversed its position. Learned counsel for petitioner Vaneet Sachdeva also contended that the petitioners did not publish or transmit any such video to anyone. Learned counsel for petitioner Diksha has argued that the aforementioned video was neither published nor transmitted by her, and that, according to the prosecution’s version, it was in the mobile phone of Vaneet Sachdeva, from which it was sent. It is also alleged that the offence is heinous. As a result, the petitioners are not eligible for anticipatory bail.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Notices were served on the petitioners in accordance with Section 41-A of the Cr. P.C., but they did not participate in the investigation. However, there is no proof that they were properly served. Because the allegations against petitioner Vaneet Sachdeva are that he prepared the obscene video and photographs of the complainant (his wife), and said video and photographs were circulated to the complainant’s phone by petitioner Diksha, and it is not the prosecution’s case that the said photographs or video were circulated amongst the general public, petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail.The Hon’ble Court has imposed a few conditions on both the petitioner and the ongoing investigation. If the petitioners do not cooperate or violate this order, the prosecution is free to file an application to cancel the petitioners’ bail.

Both petitions are dismissed in the manner stated above.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa  

Click here to view judgement