Dr. Virendra Singh Gaud vs State Of MP

G.S. Ahluwalia, J

This fourth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail. Previous application was dismissed by order dated 07.12.2021

passed in M.Cr.C. No.57404/2021.

The applicant has been arrested on 03.02.2021 in connection with Crime No.101/2018 registered at Police Station Dabra Distt. Gwalior for offence

under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 120-B of IPC.

The first bail application of the applicant has already been dismissed on merits by order dated 01.04.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11166/2021. Second

application was also dismissed on merits by order dated 03.09.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.40958/2021. The third application was dismissed as

withdrawn after arguing the mater at length by order dated 07.12.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.57404/2021.

It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, applicant was posted as doctor and he prepared forged

documents to show that co-accused Ragni Pandey was admitted in the hospital at the time when the incident took place and the said document was

used in judicial proceedings by filing the same before this Court in bail application filed by Smt. Ragni Pandey and accordingly she was granted

anticipatory bail.

Later on, the complainant filed an application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Smt. Ragni Pandey on the

ground that she has procured anticipatory bail order on the basis of forged and false documents and on an enquiry, it was found that it was the

applicant who had prepared forged document to show that Smt. Ragni Pandey was admitted in the hospital at the time of incident. Accordingly, the

order of anticipatory bail was recalled which was challenged by Smt. Ragni Pandey before the Apex Court and the SLP filed by her was also

dismissed.

However, it is submitted that the applicant is in jail for the last one year.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the State as well as complainant. It is submitted by the Counsel for the

complainant that it is the duty of a doctor to treat a patient, but it is not his duty to prepare a forged document so that the same can be used in judicial

proceedings.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact that the applicant had prepared a false documents with a solitary

intention for use of the same in a judicial proceedings and infact co-accused Ragni Pandey has succeeded in getting anticipatory bail from this Court,

which was subsequently recalled and affirmed by the Supreme Court, coupled with the fact that as per the Handwriting Expert, some of the

documents were in the handwriting of the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.