( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.443 OF 2008 CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.443 OF 2008 CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.443 OF 2008 Shri Anil Raghunath Surolia @ Sharma .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.J.A.Udaipuri i/b.Udaipuri and Co. for the applicant. Ms. Alpa Jhaveri, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 30th April, 2008. DATED : 30th April, 2008. DATED : 30th April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The applicant is arrested concering the offence of forgery as set out in the FIR I 280/2007 of Thane Police Station. This matter relates to the forgery of an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasai. 2. I have with the assistance of the learned advocate Mr. Udaipuri perused the charge sheet. The applicant himself was in possession of the two xerox copies of two orders purported to have been passed by one Judge on the complaint filed by one Ratnakar Rao, one order being order directing investigation u/s 156(3) of C.R.P.C.whereas the other order is the one by which the complaint has been dismissed. In the ( 2 ) course of investigation the certified copies of original could not be produced. Order directing investigation u/s 156(3) is passed in writing and the other order dismissing the complaint is in writing. Perusal of the order by which the complaint is apparently dismissed goes to show that the language therein cannot be that of Civil Judge Junior Division Judicial Magistrate First class. The entire matter relates to the fraud concerning the order passed by the court. It is pertinent to note that the complaint came to be filed by Mr. Rao against the present applicant and present applicant was in possession of two orders purported to have been passed by same judge which were conflicting with each other. This itself is the circumstance against the applicant particularly when the applicant in course of investigation has not produced the certified copies from which the xerox were obtained. 3. The allegations against applicant are of serious nature. The claim of the applicant across the bar before this court that Judge MR. Jadhav has falsely implied the present accused in this case can hardly be accepted as judge will have no reason to go against the applicant. Some story regarding borrowing of money by judge Jadhav is introduced. That is apparently to malign the judge. In my view in the ( 3 ) case like this court could not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. The application for bail is required to be rejected because the allegations are serious. They pertain to interference with the administration of justice in as much as the orders of court are sought to be forged. The court staff which is considered to be persons of ordinary living is likely to go under the pressure of this applicant. In addition to that if this applicant is released on bail it is likely that he may visit court establishment so as to see that whatever evidence is running against him is likely to be destroyed one way or the other. Hence the order. ORDER a) Application is rejected. 4. At this stage learned advocate Udaipuri prays for appropriate direction that learned additional sessions should take up trial expeditiously. The applicant is permitted to file the application before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane before whom the case is pending seeking early trial. ( 4 ) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)