The Delhi High Court in the case Vipul Jain v. State Through Govt Of (NCT) Of Delhi And Anr observed and has denied the anticipatory bail to a man accused of producing a forged and fabricated order purportedly passed in an arbitration proceeding, before the Delhi Police.
The bench headed by Justice Navin Chawla in the case observed and has stated that forging an order, which may be of an arbitrator, is a serious offence.
The court in the case observed and has denied the bail to one Vipul Jain, who denied the allegation wherein it is stated that who fabricated the purported order needs to be investigated and ascertained.
In the present case, the FIR was registered last year for the offences under Section 420, cheating, section 467, forgery, section 468, forgery for the purpose of cheating, section 471, using as a genuine forged document or original record, section 506, criminal intimidation and section 34, common intention of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
It has been alleged by the complainant that three unknown persons which includes Jain, came from a Finance Company from which he had taken a loan for purchasing a car, along with a female and a male Police Officer, started quarrelling with him and snatching the car keys after he failed to pay loan instalments.
Therefore, the court observed that it was later discovered that the persons who had come produced a fabricated and forged paper purporting itself to be an order passed by an Arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding authorizing them to take possession of the car.
The court stated that the said document was later found to be forged and fabricated. Dismissing Jain’s plea seeking anticipatory bail in the case.
Furtehr, the court stated that while there can be no dispute on the fact that the complainant himself may have been guilty of not having paid the instalments in accordance with the Loan Agreement with the Finance Company, however, the recovery of the vehicle can only be made in accordance with the law. Thus, Forging an order, may be of an alleged arbitrator, is a serious offence.
The court in the case was also informed that the co-accused, who had accompanied Jain, was also taken into custody and was later released on regular bail, Justice Chawla said that merely because no action was against the erring Police Officers cannot be a reason for granting anticipatory bail to Jain at the stage of the investigation.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that as far as the question of no loss being caused due to the acts of the applicant is concerned, it is also a matter of trial and cannot be considered at this stage.
The counsel, Advocates Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Akshay Dev, Mr. Ytharth Kumar, Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Panday, Mr. Rohan Chandra, Ms. Smriti Wadhwa & Mr. Pankaj Kumar Madi appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Mr. Aman Usman, APP represented the respondent.