Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR : Ld. ASJ-06 :
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS :
NEW DELHI
Bail Application No. 493/2024
FIR No. 1/2024
PS Kartavya Path
Under Sections 417/511/465/468/471 IPC
State Vs. Mohan Panchal
19.04.2024
This is an application u/s. 439 CrPC for seeking regular
bail of the accused Vinay Singh S/o Shiv Prasad.
Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh.Deepak Tyagi, Sh.Dipinder Gaur and Sh.Chander
Kiran, Ld. Counsels for the applicant/accused.
IO Inspector Mahesh Kumar along with case file.
1. Reply to the present bail application is filed by the
IO. Its copy is supplied to the other side.
2. Arguments on the application are heard. Case file,
application and its reply are carefully perused.
3. Briefly stated, the present FIR u/s. 417/511/465/
468/471 IPC dated 04.01.2024 was lodged in PS Kartavya Path
on the basis of the complaint of Sh. B.N. Bhaskar, Additional
Private Secretary to Minister of Finance & Corporate Affairs,
Government of India with the allegations that an unknown
individual had used forged signature of Smt. Nirmala
Sitharaman, Hon’ble Minister of Finance & Corporate Affairs on
her forged letter head for writing a letter to Hon’ble Minister of
Home Affairs. It was alleged that the forged letter could
potentially cause harm, mislead or manipulate government
Page No. 1/5
-- 1 of 5 --
process. Copy of the alleged forged letter dated 11.12.2023 was
annexed with the complaint. Pertinently, subject of the alleged
forged letter is “Urgent appeal for justice in the case of Movva
Rama Krishna against Kommareddy Ram Babu for unregistered
GPA” (certain case related to land dispute in Hyderabad).
4. As per report of the IO, during investigation, Movva
Rama Krishna was examined who stated that a land dispute of M.
Ramkrishna was pending for the last 20 years and for that, he
approached one Janardhan Sharma and M. Nageshwar to get help
in resolving matter. Subsequently, A. Janardhan Rao s/o Vanket
Subba and M. Nageshwar Rao S/o M. Seetharama were also
examined. M. Nageshwar Rao revealed that he discussed the said
matter with the co-accused Mohan Panchal, who agreed to get
the work done with the help of the applicant for a consideration
of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only). The applicant stole
two blank letters head from the Ministry of Finance and got
typed the matter of the said case on those papers at Patel Chest
near DU. He forged the signature of Hon’ble Finance Minister
and handed them over to the co-accused Mohan Panchal.
Thereafter, co-accused Mohan Panchal got them deposited in
MHA through his friend Harish.
5. Both the accused persons including the applicant
were arrested in the present case on 09.04.2024 and since then
they are in custody.
6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that he
has clear antecedents. He further submits that nothing
incriminating was recovered from his possession. He further
Page No. 2/5
-- 2 of 5 --
submits that he is no more required for the investigation in this
case. He submits that co-accused has already been released on
bail. He submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by
further curtailing his liberty. He submits that he has deep roots in
the society and therefore, his flight risk is non existent. With
these submissions, he has requested that the applicant be released
on bail.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
assisted by the IO has opposed the present application. He
submits that the applicant has committed a grave offence. He
further submits that he hatched a criminal conspiracy with co-
accused Mohan Panchal to forge the signature of Hon’ble
Finance Minister on her letter head to influence the Hon’ble
Home Minister by urging him to interfere in a case of land
dispute at Hyderabad. He further submits that if released on bail,
he may again commit similar offence and he may influence or
threaten the complainant and other public witnesses. With these
submissions, he has sought dismissal of the present bail
application.
8. Till date, the IO has neither collected the original
forged document nor obtained the admitted signatures of Hon’ble
Finance Minister for sending them to the FSL for their
comparison and examination. Admittedly, nothing incriminating
has been recovered from the applicant. The maximum
punishment prescribed for the offence under which the applicant
has been arrested is seven years.
9. Nothing is required to be recovered from the
applicant. He is no more required for the purpose of investigation
Page No. 3/5
-- 3 of 5 --
in this case. The co-accused has already been released on bail.
No fruitful purpose would be served by further curtailing his
liberty. He is stated to have clear antecedents. His chances of
reformation and his career prospects may suffer a severe blow, if
he is kept in the company of hardened criminals in the jail.
Further, he is stated to have deep roots in society and therefore,
his flight risk is negligible. In order to afford fair trial to the
applicant, he must be given an opportunity to prepare for his
defence and that would not be possible while being in custody.
Further, this court is conscious of the settled principle of bail that
“Bail is rule and jail is an exception”. The said sacrosanct
principle is one of the crucial guiding factor for disposing off bail
applications.
10. In the above facts & circumstances, in the interest of
justice and on the ground of parity, applicant Vinay Singh s/o
Sh. Shiv Prasad is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond
in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)
with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Ld. MM/
Link MM/Duty MM and subject to the following conditions :-
I. He shall not tamper with the evidence and in case
charge-sheet is filed against him, he shall regularly
appear in the court during the trial;
II. He shall not pressurize, induce, influence or threaten the
complainant and other witnesses to dissuade them from
not revealing true facts; and
III. He shall convey his address to the Court and the SHO
concerned in case of its change.
11. The observations made while disposing off the
present application shall not tantamount to the expressions on the
Page No. 4/5
-- 4 of 5 --
merits of the case.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned court of
Ld. MM and its another copy be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent, to inform the applicant.
13. At request, a copy of this order be given dasti to ld.
Counsel for the applicant and the IO.
(Dheeraj Mor)
Bail Roster Judge/
ASJ-06/NDD/PHC
New Delhi:19.04.2024
Page No. 5/5
-- 5 of 5 --