aba-368-11==.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.368 OF 2011 Tulsidas Nair ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru' Vakola Police Station, Mumbai ... Respondent Mr. M.V. Holmagi for the Applicant. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent. Mr. R.S. Ghadge for the Original Complainant. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 6 TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Holmagi, the learned Advocate, for the Applicant, Mrs. S.D. Shinde, the learned APP, for the Respondent and Mr. R.S. Ghadge, the learned Advocate, for the Original Complainant. 2. The Applicant, who is sought to be arrested in M.E.C.R. No.2 of 2010 by the Vakola Police Station, seeks anticipatory bail. The allegation against the Applicant is based on a complaint made by Mrs. Twinder Pal Anand to the aba-368-11==.sxw 2 Dixit effect that the Applicant forged two documents; (1) a receipt and (2) an agreement, and produced those documents in the City Civil Court at Dindoshi in Suit No.2369 of 2010, which has been filed by the Applicant for certain reliefs. The complainant Mrs. Twinder Pal Anand is the Defendant in the said Suit. The allegation is that these forged documents were produced before the City Civil Court in order to mislead the Court and secure favourable orders in the said Suit. On receiving a notice from the City Civil Court, the complainant remained present before that Court and at that time, realized that the Applicant had produced forged documents before the Court. It is thereafter that the complainant lodged a complaint with the Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Mumbai, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 406, 506(2) IPC r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The Magistrate ordered investigation, as contemplated under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which the aforesaid M.E.C.R. No.2 of 2010 was registered. 3. A reading of the F.I.R. makes it clear that, basically, the grievance of the complainant is that the Applicant has produced forged documents in Court in order to support his claim in the Suit. A reading of the F.I.R. also makes it clear that what is alleged, is, basically, an offence against the public justice. aba-368-11==.sxw 3 Dixit In the context of these allegations, provisions of Section 195(1)(b) and Section 340 of the Code should be kept in mind. It appears, prima facie, that a complaint by the concerned Court would be necessary in order to prosecute the Applicant. 4. I have specifically asked Mr. R.S. Ghadge, the learned Advocate for the original complainant, who was permitted to appear and make his submissions opposing the application, as to whether an application for initiating an inquiry under Section 340 of the Code has been made to the City Civil Court. I am told that, so far, no such application has been made. 5. It is submitted that custodial detention and interrogation of the Applicant would be necessary. However, since after considering the nature of the alleged offences and the scheme of the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 of the Code, it appears, prima facie, that a complaint by the Court would be necessary to prosecute the Applicant, no importance to this submission can be given. 6. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant. It is needless to say, that should the City Civil Court decide to aba-368-11==.sxw 4 Dixit make a complaint in respect of the alleged forgery committed by the Applicant, the State shall be at liberty to make an appropriate application for cancellation of bail. 7. In the event of his arrest in M.E.C.R. No.2 of 2010 of Vakola Police Station, the Applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in like amount on the condition that he attend the Vakola Police Station, Mumbai, every day between 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and make himself available for investigation / interrogation for a period of two weeks from today; and even thereafter, if so required by the Investigating Officer. 8. On hearing Mrs. S.D. Shinde, the learned APP, it is made clear that in the event of the Applicant's failure to attend the Police Station, as directed above, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]