Cr Bail 6818/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** (1) Cr. Msc. Bail Application No.6818/2007 Mohanlal Goyal Versus State (2) Cr. Msc. Bail Application No.7895/2007 Vivek Goyal Versus State (3) Cr. Msc. Bail Application No.7769/2007 Rajesh Kala Versus State Date of Order ::: 17/01/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. SR Surana, for petitioner- Mohanlal Mr. S.K.Gupta, for petitioner-Rajesh Kala Mr. Biri Singh, for petitioner-Viveka Goyal Mr. Shyam Arya, Public Prosecutor These three bail applications U/s 439, CrPC has been filed by petitioners (Mohanlal Goyal, Vivek Goyal, & Rajesh Kala) who happen to be practising Advocates of this Court, after challan has been filed against them for respective offences U/Ss 119, 204, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 & 120-B, IPC, in FIR-154/2007 PS Ashok Nagar (Jaipur). Circumstances leading to instant bail applications, briefly stated are thus. Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of High Court lodged a written report on 03/08/07 at Police Station Ashok Nagar (Jaipur), inter-alia alleging therein that on 17/04/07, Cr. Revision Petition No.376/07 against framing charge for offences U/s 302, & 201, IPC against Ajay Sharma was presented by one of Cr Bail 6818/07 //2// petitioners (Vivek Goyal), which was listed before the Court on 23/04/07, 30/04/07, 16/05/07, 25/05/07 & 30/05/07 for its admission but order-sheets of date 16th & 25th May, 2007 were found missing from its court file; and that apart, result sheet maintained by court official was also got displaced from court record with a view to show that Cr. Revision was got disposed of by the Court on 30/05/07, while in fact as it revealed in course of in-house inquiry, Cr. Revision was simply adjourned on aforesaid dates; inasmuch as on 01/06/07, petitioner Vivek Kala (Advocate) applied for getting certified copy of alleged order purporting Cr.Revision of Ajay Sharma being disposed of on 30/05/07 and got its certified copy, as well on the very day (01/06/07) – on the basis whereof, Ajay Sharma (accused petitioner in Cr.Revision) was managed to be released on bail in a criminal case for offence U/s 302, IPC. At some point of time, it came to the notice of Public Prosecutor about alleged order dt.30/05/07 granting bail to Ajay Sharma (petitioner in Cr. Revision-376/07) of being forged, thereby, Public Prosecutor presented Cr. Misc. Application No.1108/ 2007 in Cr. Revision, ibid seeking cancellation of bail to Ajay Sharma; wherein notices were issued to the Counsel (petitioner Vivek Goyal) appearing for Cr Bail 6818/07 //3// Ajay Sharma, ibid, - explanation of whom, was also called for. In explanation by way of affidavit, petitioner Vivek Goyal deposed that he was engaged by petitioner Rajesh Kala (advocate) and on all occasions in course of proceedings in Cr. Revision, he had taken care of it and transactions took place through him (Kala). It transpired from the record that one Shri Ajay Sharma was facing trial after he was charged for offence U/s 302 & 201, IPC in Sess. Case No.4/07 as Court of Sessions has declined to release him on bail vide order dt. 11/01/07 against which S.B.Cr. Bail application No. 631/07 U/s 439, CrPC was filed on behalf of Ajay Sharma in FIR No.439/06 P.S.Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur but dismissed by High Court vide order dt. 23/02/07, hence Tulsiram Sharma father of Ajay Sharma (accused-petitioner in Cr.Revision-376/07) approached petitioner (Mohanlal Goyal who was Addl. Government Advocate) through his brother DP Gupta for getting bail in favour of his son. It is pertinent to mention that while considering Cr. Misc. Appl. No.1108/07 in Cr.Rev. 376/07 seeking cancellation of bail to Ajay Sharma, co-ordinate Bench took note of order dt.30/05/07 and from FSL report, order dt.30/05/07 was found to be forged document and has not been signed by the Cr Bail 6818/07 //4// Hon'ble Judge and accordingly ordered to issue arrest warrant against Ajay Sharma (petitioner- Cr.Revision, ibid) vide order dt.24/07/07 and directed the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) to make inquiry into the matter. In course of in-house inquiry, explanations of Court officials & advocates were called for but petitioner Rajesh Kala (Advocate) refused to give evidence & refused to answer queries put by Deputy Registrar (Judl); and on a report whereof, co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dt.02/08/07 in Cr. Misc. Appl.1108/07 directed the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) to lodge the FIR. In the above back ground, on a written report lodged by Deputy Registrar (Judl.), criminal case under FIR-154/07 was registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar (Jaipur) for various offices (supra) on 03/08/07 against Ummed Singh, Jr.Personal Assistant of the Court and also present petitioners. In course of investigation, statements U/s 161 CrPC were record of numerous witnesses including Tulsiram (father of Ajay Sharma, ibid), Suresh Gurjar, Clerk of petitioner Rajesh Kala Advocate, besides employees of High Court. After completion of investigation, challan has been filed against all the accused including petitioners herein. Cr Bail 6818/07 //5// At the outset, Counsel for petitioner (Rajesh Kala) though raised legal objections, as well that since cognizance has not been taken by learned trial Judge so far, thereby period of limitation prescribed of 90 days has expired from the date of arrest of petitioners (accused), they are entitled for bail in exercise of powers U/s 167(2) CrPC; and that complaint ought to have been filed U/s 195, CrPC by Deputy Registrar (Judl.) after conducting inquiry U/s 340, CrPC, but FIR impugned was registered which is not in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. But Counsel in course of arguments, has given up and does not press aforesaid objections. Counsel for petitioners jointly submit that offences alleged in the FIR are triable by Magistrate and petitioners (accused) are in judicial custody since September/October, 2007 and upon challan having been filed in Court, no further investigation is required to be made qua them; as such post-arrest bail be extended to them. Counsel further submit that main perpetrator for allegedly forging order dt.30/05/07 is Umed Singh, Jr. Personal Assistant while present petitioners have been arrayed as accused with the aid of Section 120-B, IPC; as such no inference can be drawn against them and merely because father of Ajay Sharma has approached son of Cr Bail 6818/07 //6// petitioner Mohanlal Goyal initially and other accused (petitioners Vivek Goyal & Rajesh Kala Advocates) were engaged who were taking care of matter before the Court and money transactions took place through ML Goyal & Rajesh Kala) as alleged, no inference either way can be drawn and once no further investigation is not required from them, even if inquiry is said to have been pending U/s 173(8) CrPC, no purpose is likely to be served to keep them behind the bar. Counsel for petitioner (ML Goyal) submits that petitioner has felt sick and requires medical care which is not being made available. If that is so, he is always free to file application before concerned authority. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed instant applications seeking post arrest bail to the petitioners and submits that being Advocates by profession and having been practising before this Court, petitioners are law officers to assist the Court and if such persons are engaged in creating forged orders, very sanctity and public faith in legal institution has been shaken; as such their act has to be stringently dealt with and not even present petitioners but also others whosoever if found to be engaged in such like activities shaking Cr Bail 6818/07 //7// image of judiciary, may also have courage to recur such culpability at a later point of time; as such they deserve no leniency irrespective of their culpable act being triable by Magistrate. This Court has considered rival contentions urged by learned Counsel for petitioners and Public Prosecutor; and with their assistance, examined material on record and case diary. It prima facie transpires from statements recorded U/s 161, CrPC and other material collected during investigation shows about involvement of petitioners who are practising Advocate to assist the Court as its law officers, in getting forged bail order dt.30/05/07. One Tulsiram father of Ajay Sharma (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.376/07) approached petitioner ML Goyal through his brother (DP Gupta) who was known to him (Tulsiram); and that apart, initially in the file being maintained by Public Prosecutor office, Shri BK Sharma, having appeared as Public Prosecutor on 30/05/07, in his statement recorded U/s 161, CrPC, stated that Cr.Rev.376/07 in fact was adjourned; as such he had put his Note of adjournment on their file; but the file was later on called by petitioner (ML Goyal, who was Addl. Govt. Advocate in the Office of Public Prosecutor) and word, “adjourned” noted by Cr Bail 6818/07 //8// him (BK Sharma) was scored out and in his own handwriting, ML Goyal put a note of revision petition being disposed of/dismissed. Petitioner (Vivek Goyal) was engaged through petitioner Rajesh Kala in Cr. Revision-376/07 and who applied for certified copy of order dt.30/05/07 through his Clerk and had been successful in getting certified copy whereof issued, and accused petitioner (Rajesh Kala) has throught been associated with the matter from engagement till alleged disposal of Cr. Rev.-376/07 case on 30/05/07, as is evident from material in case diary, which prima facie shows that they were involved and in touch with co-accused Umed Singh (Jr.PA) in getting bail order forged. That apart, FSL report prima facie demonstrates the order dt.30/05/07 of being forged one and as regards investigation, material came on record also certainly prima facie depicts commission of offences alleged against petitioners. It has also come in the case diary that a sum of Rs.Three lacs were settled to fabricate order in question in favour of Ajay Sharma and this sum was distributed among the accused persons. However, it cannot also be lost sight of fact that such like act of petitioners having been done, in no manner can be taken leniently merely Cr Bail 6818/07 //9// because offences alleged against them are triable of Magistrate. If such like forged orders as happened in in the case at hand are allowed to continue by way of either taking lenient view and releasing such like persons on bail, merely on the premise of offences being triable by Magistrate,, certainly it may shake conscience and tarnish image of the Courts and people may loose confidence in administration of justice being rendered by this institution. Without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find any justification to enlarge the petitioners on post-arrest bail U/s 439, CrPC. Consequently, these three bail applications fail and are hereby dismissed. However, the trial Judge pending trial will not influence himself by observations made (supra). If an application is filed seeking proper medical treatment to petitioner (ML Goyal), it will be considered by the authority for providing him proper medical treatment. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.9/6818CrBail07(3).doc