'r' -I\lIta J ,\' ( t A \7 2B # o/o. 15.02.2010 Present: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Rajesh Anand, Ms. Sahila Lamba and Mr. Tenzing Tsering, Advs. for the petitioner. Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State. +Crl. M.A. Nos .L65O-5L ^O1O *. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. Bail Appln. No. 28712OLO 1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail. 2. As per the FIR he produced a bail order purportedly passed by the Supreme Coirt of India which later on was found to be forged. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that after submitting the bail order with the jail authorities. petitioner became suspicious and contacted his earlier lawyer, who checked the website of the Supreme Court and told him that no such bail order had been passed. Thereafter, petitioner himself made a complaint with the Law Officer, Tihar Jail but no action was taken. Instead, on the complaint of Director Jail (Prison), FIR in question Signing Date:01.08.2024 16:52:56 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 4/- was registered against the petitioner. lt is further contended that petitioner himself had been.duped by one lawyer namely Narender Kumar Sharma who handed over the bail order to him. 4. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State. lt is contended that petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation. Almost for one year he did not make himself 1 available before the investigating officer, despite information. Proceedings against the petitioner for declaring him a proclaimed offender had been initiated. 5. Keeping in mind serious allegations, I am of the view that custodial interrogation will be required to unearth the whole racket. 6. Dismissed. February 15, 2OLO ga A.K. PATHAK, J