Forgery Judgments
Where anticipatory bail has been granted:
1. Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1225):
There is also no reason to deny anticipatory bail merely because the allegation
in this case pertains to cheating or forgery of a valuable security. The merits of
these issues shall have to be assessed at the time of the trial of the accused
persons and denial of anticipatory bail only on the ground that the challan has
been presented would not satisfy the requirements of Sections 437 and 438
Cr.P.C.
2. Geeta Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 13 SCC 520:
Anticipatory bail in case of alleged cheating and forgery – relating to
fraudulent dissolution of partnership firm – Petitioners ready to join the
investigation- matter pending before arbitration. As a result, the court granted
stay on the arrest of the petitioners, with the direction that they would
cooperate in the investigation.
Where anticipatory bail not granted:
2. Maruti Nivrutti Navale v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 235:
Considering the seriousness of the alleged forgery of the lease deed, custodial
interrogation necessary – Moreover, during the grant of interim protection by
the Supreme Court – appellant misused his liberty to intimidate complainants –
Hence relief of anticipatory bail rejected.
3.
Observations
1. The Supreme Court has interpreted the right of anticipatory bail vis a vis
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution – The only pre-condition required for
exercising this right is that the accused should have reason to believe that he
would be arrested on accusation of committing a non-bailable offence. –
Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandi – 2024 - SLP (Crl.) No. 6942 of 2024
2. Sushila Aggarwal vs State (Nct Of Delhi): 2020
This court, in the light of the above discussion in the two judgments, and in the
light of the answers to the reference, hereby clarifies that the following need to
be kept in mind by courts, dealing with applications under Section 438, Cr. PC:
(1) Consistent with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v.
State of Punjab (1980) 54, when a person complains of apprehension of arrest
and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts
(and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence.
The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts
relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as
well as his 1980 (2) SCC 565 side of the story. These are essential for the court
which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension,
its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may
have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only
after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and
there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.
(2) It may be advisable for the court, which is approached with an application
under Section 438, depending on the seriousness of the threat (of arrest) to
issue notice to the public prosecutor and obtain facts, even while granting
limited interim anticipatory bail.
(3) Nothing in Section 438 Cr. PC, compels or obliges courts to impose
conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of
statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc.
While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to
consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his
influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including
intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the
country), etc.
Cases where there is a previous history of absconding – no anticipatory bail
granted.
The arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those
exceptional cases like tampering of the witness, Impact of grant of anticipatory
bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of
people etc. - Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra – 2011
Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar – 2021 (Supreme Court)
In cases where the person has been declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender – then
anticipatory bail is not granted.
438. Direction for grant of bail to person
apprehending arrest.
- [(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be
arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable
offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session
for a direction under this section that in the event of such
arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after
taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors,
namely:-(i)the nature and gravity of the accusation;(ii)the
antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether
he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a
Court in respect of any cognisable offence;(iii)the possibility of
the applicant to flee from justice; and(iv)where the accusation
has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the
applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the
application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of
anticipatory bail:Provided that, where the High Court or, as the
case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim
order under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for
grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer incharge
of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the applicant on
the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.(1-
A) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-Section
(1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven
days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on
the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a
view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of
being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the
Court.(1-B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory
bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the
application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an
application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court
considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice.
1. Cases registered against the assessee
2. Provisions – analysis
3. Judgments of the Supreme Court – how has the Supreme Court interpreted the application
for anticipatory bail.