The present application is filed seeking to release the applicant on anticipatory bail as she is apprehending her arrest in connection with the complaint being C.R.No.I-207 of 2010 registered with Kamrej Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Secs.193, 195, 196, 388, 389, 465, 468, 469, 471, 120B, 34 and 114 of IPC.
Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr.N.D.Nanavaty for M/s Nanavaty Advocates for the applicant, learned APP, Mr.L.B.Dabhi for the respondent-State and learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Y.S.Lakhani for Ms.Kruti M.Shah, learned advocate, for the original complainant.
It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel, Mr.N.D.Nanavaty for the applicant that the present applicant lady has lodged complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 307, 120B, 497, 376, 114, 354, 377, 394, 504, 506(2) and 353 of IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act in which the first informant was arrested and wherein charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, the applicant was assaulted by the first informant and as the evidence in the nature of sting operation through spy camera were distributed and hence, a complaint was given in writing to PSI and PI of Kamrej Police Station on 6-9-2010. It is further submitted that in order to settle the personal scores, the complaint in question is filed by the complainant against the applicant and her family members alleging that the documents produced along with the charge sheet papers were forged and fabricated by the applicant accused and co-accused and, therefore, these documents could not be said to be admissible in evidence under Sec.3 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that if these documents are found to be forged and fabricated, then remedy is available to lodge complaint either by the complainant or the Court under Sec.319 of Cr.P.C. during the course of trial. It is further submitted that all the alleged documents have been recovered by the Investigating Agency and hence, custodial interrogation of the applicant will not be required. It is further submitted that accused No.2-Madhukantaben @ Madhuben Bhimjibhai Patel, accused No.3-Kashmiraben Jaswantkumar Chaudhary and accused No.4 Sudhir Surendrakymar Sood and Pravinaben Sudhirkumar Sood have been released on anticipatory bail by the court below and hence, it is prayed that the applicant may also be released on anticipatory bail. He has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Vs.K.M.Anees-ul-haq reported in 2011(0)GLHEL-SC 50693.
Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Y.S.Lakhani for Ms.Kruti M.Shah, learned advocate for the original complainant, has submitted that the complaint has been filed by the complainant as the complainant has been implicated in a false case by the accused and her other accomplice by creating forged and fabricated documents in order to grab money from the complainant by illegal means. It is further submitted that the investigating agency without verifying the genuineness of the documents produced by the applicants has registered false case against the complainant though it was opined by the Forensic Expert that there are differences between the photocopies of the documents given by the present applicant at the time of making complaint and originals of the same recovered by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the inland letter dated 12-12-2004 produced by the present applicant in the said complaint contains the advertisement of Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme which was not in existence in 2004 but it was introduced only in November, 2007 by the Government of India and released by the Postal Department only in April, 2009 and thus it is apparent that a forged and fabricated document has been produced by the present applicant and since it prima facie appeared that the said document i.e. letter which is produced by the applicant while filing the complaint against the present complainant is forged and fabricated and a prima facie offence is made out, there is no ban for lodging of the complaint even if these documents are placed along with the charge sheet in reference to the complaint lodged by the present applicant accused. In view of the above background, since the complainant is a victim of the alleged forgery committed by the present applicant, the present complaint is filed and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is a necessity and hence, it is urged that this application may not be entertained.
It appears that present applicant has filed a criminal case against the complainant of this case for the offences under sections 307, 376, 377 and 498A, etc. of IPC and under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act which was registered as C.R.No.I-67 of 2010 with Kamrej Police Station. Thereafter, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging that the documents i.e. inland letters produced by the present applicant while filing complaint against the present complainant were forged and fabricated and it has been registered as C.R.No.I-207 of 2010 with Kamrej Police Station. It is prima facie seen from the police papers that the document i.e. inland letter released by the Postal Department in April, 2009 of the Scheme of the Government of India introduced in November, 2007 was allegedly produced by the present applicant on 12-12-2004 in the complaint filed against the present complainant. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that a forgery of Government of India's inland letter has been allegedly committed by the present applicant and therefore, it is a matter of investigation by the investigating agency to find out the root of the offence. Hence, the applicant cannot be granted anticipatory bail especially when allegations levelled against the applicant have been prima facie established from the police papers. In view of the above, the defense of the applicant cannot be looked into at this stage of deciding the anticipatory bail application but can be decided at the end of trial. In view of the above, as facts of the cited decision and facts of the present case are totally different, the applicant would not be entitled to the benefit of the decision cited by her learned Senior Counsel. Under the circumstances, this Court would not think it fit to exercise its discretion under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Hence, this application is rejected. Rule is discharged.
The observations made by this Court in this order being made for the purpose of deciding this application shall not prejudice the parties in any future application for bail or in trial.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan Top