1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.4347/2010 Surinder Nath Kapoor Vs. State Date of order : 27/5/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Alok Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Amit Punia, P.P. for the State. Shri Ashok Mehta for the complainant. ****** This bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioner Surinder Nath Kapoor apprehending his arrest in F.I.R. No.168/2004, P.S. Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC. Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the pre-arrest bail has been declined by the Court of Sessions merely on consideration of the fact that case against the petitioner has been registered for offence u/s.420 and 120B of IPC, whereas the Court ignored the fact that provisions of Section 467 and 468, attracted in situation of committing forgery are not alleged. Petitioner is 81 years old person and has been subjected to angioplasties three times. The FIR in the present case was filed on 15.5.2004 after the petitioner had filed complaint u/s.138A of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant and therein requisite notice was served upon him on 11.3.2004 and he gave reply thereto on 15.3.2004. The plea with regard to alleged interpolation of figure “2” before the figure “7” was not set out. However, in the subsequent notice that was served on 28.3.2004 by way of an afterthought; such a plea was sought to be set up for the first time 2 with regard to which certain observations were made by the learned trial court while rejecting the complaint of the petitioner under Section 138A in its order. Those observations were based on the opinion of the experts produced by the complaint. In this very matter, the local police had originally submitted final report, but at the persuasion of the complainant, subsequently, the investigation was got transferred to CID (CB) and on that basis reinvestigation is being made. No opinion of FSL of the State has been obtained regarding addition of the figure “2”. Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan-(2010) 1 SCC 684, to argue that provisions of anticipatory bail have been introduced to prevent deprivation of personal liberty and it cannot be jettisoned on technicalities such as challan having been filed. Court has to exercise its jurisdiction judiciously. Such benefit cannot be denied merely because allegation of forgery has been made. It is further contended that dispute is purely of civil nature. The complainant does not dispute that he gave the Cheque. The cheque contains his signature and the correct amount. Similar allegation against the complainant by the petitioner himself in his complaint is for offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC in which case he too was given the benefit of bail by order of the Supreme Court while rejecting his Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6769/2007, Mahesh Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., dated 3.3.2009 against the order of charge. Petitioner is ready and willing to produce 3 himself before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation as and when called upon to do so. The benefit of bail be granted to him especially when the dispute pertains to the year 2003 and now his arrest is being sought to be made by the police after seven years. The petitioner has filed appeals against the rejection of his complaints filed under Section 138A, supra, which have been admitted in which the complainant was summoned by bailable warrants. Learned PP and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and invited attention of the Court towards the notice dated 28.3.2004 to say that figure “2” was added subsequently to the already existing figure of “7”, in order to bring the case within the limitation prescribed by Section 138A which figure does not appear in the carbon copy / counter foil of the cheque and the covering letter by which the cheque was delivered to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant specifically laid emphasis on the fact that since the complainant has been harassed at the hands of the petitioner in number of frivolous cases of dishonour of cheque, which were given only as collateral security for existing agreement between the parties and were renewed from time to time, he may not be granted any indulgence of pre-arrest bail by this Court, moreover, when the handwriting expert has given his opinion before the trial court against him. Having regard to the submissions made aforesaid, however, petitioner deserves to be granted pre-arrest bail. 4 In the result, this bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, petitioner Surinder Nath Kapoor S/o Late Shri Shivdayal Kapoor be released by the SHO/IO on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties each of Rs.50,000/- to his satisfaction with the following conditions: 1. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and 3. that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court concerned. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/