Jagdish Chand Thakur vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, J.—This is an application u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the Petitioner on bail in FIR No. 95/2010 dated 04.12.2010, registered at Police Station, Darlaghat, under Sections 448, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused.

It has been stated in the application that the case has been registered against Jagdish Chand, son of Lachhu Ram, at the instance of Smt. Narbada Devi on the allegations that he fabricated false writing in his favour with respect to a house to be sold to him by the husband of the complainant. On the basis of said writing, the said Jagdish Chand has filed a Civil Suit against complainant and one Smt. Krishani Devi. The Petitioner is also Jagdish Chand son of Sita Ram Thakur. Jagdish Chand, son of Lachhu Ram was arrested, but was released on bail.

It has been stated that during investigation one witness has allegedly deposed that Jagdish Chand, son of Lachhu Ram got his signatures by cheating on the said writing and also on the receipt, whereas, Bhagat Ram, husband of the complainant and seller died about two years back.

It has also been stated that the witness has alleged that Jagdish Chand, son of Lachhu had administered some intoxicating substance to him in the tea in the house of the Petitioner. The police is trying to implicate the Petitioner in the case.

The Petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. In view of registration of the case, the Petitioner is apprehending his arrest. The Petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the Petitioner on bail u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure .

The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report in which it has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of complaint dated 04.11.2010 of Smt. Narbada Devi. She has stated that her husband Bhagat Ram has died on 31.03.2009. It has been stated that Jagdish Chand, son of Lachhu Ram after death of Bhagat Ram prepared a false document for the sale of the house and he has even filed a suit regarding the house of the complainant in the Court at Arki.

The scribe Surender Verma has stated that Jagdish and his advocate had brought a draft of writing to him in which changes were made and he was asked to re-write the document. After some time, one draft receipt was also given to him for preparing receipt. It has been stated that Jagdish Chand and Jai Prakash were arrested, but they have been released on bail. Surender Verma has stated that Petitioner had given draft of the document to him for preparing the document which he prepared and handed over to Jagdish Chand. It has been alleged that Petitioner has conspired to commit the offence.

I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he conspired with Jagdish Chand to prepare forged documents. The Petitioner is not the scribe or witness of the document. Jagdish and Jai Prakash main accused have been released on bail. There is no allegation in the status report that Petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation nor the Investigating Agency has stated that any recovery is to be made from Petitioner. It has not been indicated in the status report for what purpose custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No. 95/2010.

In view of above, the application is allowed and in the event of arrest of Petitioner in FIR No. 95/2010 dated 04.12.2010, registered at Police Station, Darlaghat, under Sections 448, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC, he be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that Petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when directed by Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.