The facts giving rise to the filing of the bail application in brief are that in the year 1997 the complainant Harnam Singh filed a complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant is a Non-resident Indian settled in Kuwait.In connection with the complaint, the applicant filed exemption applications seeking exemption from personal appearance on 26.5.1999 and 10.6.1999 on the basis of two OPD medical Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 1 of 6 slips dated 20.5.1999 and 7.6.1999 respectively.Exemption was granted on the basis on these certificates.On 22.9.2003 the complaint under Section 138 was withdrawn.Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 1 of 6On 1.3.2005, on the basis of another complaint filed by the complainant alleging that the medical certificates were forged, the summoning court issued orders summoning the applicant.Against the aforesaid FIR the applicant filed a petition before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which was however withdrawn.A second petition was filed under Section 482 which is stated to be pending disposal.In the meantime, the applicant had also preferred Crl.By order dated 30.5.2013, this Court (S.P.Garg, J.) quashed the summoning order and allowed the petition.Apprehending arrest in the FIR filed by the complainant, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail.The learned counsel for the applicant strongly relies on the order of this Court cited above and states that the basis for the issue of summons and Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 2 of 6 the basis for the registration of the FIR being the same, and the summons having been quashed, there is nothing which survives in the FIR and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.He points out that there is inordinate delay in filing the FIR which has not been explained.It is further pointed out that he is 68 years of age and is willing to join the investigation for which purpose he may be put to terms.Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 2 of 6On the other hand, the learned APP contends that as per the correspondence with the Indian Embassy in Kuwait, the medical certificates would appear to have been forged and thus a case of forgery has been prima facie made out.He submits that the originals of the medical certificates were never filed and were withheld from the Court.The investigation into the case is afoot and the applicant has failed to join the same.It is also pointed out that the originals are to be recovered from the applicant in order to establish the case of forgery.In his brief rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant states that even on 5.4.2013 the applicant had communicated with the investigating officer which shows his bonafide.He further points out that the complainant had withdrawn the complaint under Section 138 against the applicant and there is nothing to show that any benefit was obtained by the applicant by the use of the certificates.Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 3 of 6On a careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, the basis for the summoning order dated 1.3.2005 and the basis for the FIR are the same.(d) The application filed by the complainant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was withdrawn.(h) No coercive action was taken by the trial court against the accused.The above finding of this Court impinge on the present proceedings also which arise out of the FIR filed on the same facts and material.The applicant is directed to join the investigation as and when required.He shall also make available his contact telephone number, fax number and E-mail ID to the SHO/IO concerned.Subject to these conditions, anticipatory bail is granted and the bail application is allowed in the above terms.

Cited provisions: Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code