Bengaluru, August 22, 2023 – The LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCC-56), has granted anticipatory bail to Darshan P. (S/o S. Pushparaj) in a case involving allegations of forgery, cheating, and using a forged document as genuine. The order, delivered by Sri. Shriram Narayan Hegde, allows the petitioner to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 20/2023 registered at the Vyalikaval Police Station for offences under Sections 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner, identified in the FIR as Sri. Purhparaj Darshan and represented by M/s ACA JURIS, Advocates, had filed the petition (Crl.Misc. No. 7820/2023) under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking protection from imminent arrest.

Background of the Corporate Dispute

The case originates from a complaint filed by Sri. Swaminathan, representing a partnership firm engaged in Infrastructure Development. The complainant’s firm had previously entered into a contract with M/s. KNK Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for structural and civil works related to the construction of an office building in Yelahanka Hobli.

The prosecution alleges that M/s. KNK Constructions Pvt. Ltd. abandoned the work, failed to rectify numerous defects, and their contract was terminated on February 25, 2020. The current complaint was triggered on February 22, 2023, when the complainant’s firm received an email from the Executive Engineer of KSRTC, CE-Division, Tumkur. The KSRTC official sought confirmation regarding a ‘Work Done Certificate’ furnished by M/s. KNK Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

The key allegation is that this ‘Work Done Certificate’ was printed on a fabricated and bogus letterhead of the complainant’s firm, using a bogus rubber stamp and the forged signature of one of the Managing Partners. This forged document was allegedly submitted to KSRTC to facilitate securing a tender.

Petitioner’s Defense and Counter-Allegations

Darshan P. contended that he is an innocent businessman falsely implicated due to business rivalry. His defense highlighted the following points:

1. Prior Disputes: The dispute is rooted in a commercial contract that is already subject to arbitration proceedings.
2. Counter-Complaints: The petitioner had previously filed a complaint against the first informant with the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Police in January 2022, which was deemed a civil matter. Furthermore, the petitioner’s company has filed a separate criminal complaint (Cr. No. 77/2023) against the complainant’s firm for various offenses.
3. No Motive for Forgery: The petitioner argued that his company had already received payment for the work done from the first informant, negating any necessity to create or forge a ‘Work Done Certificate’.
4. Cooperation with Police: Crucially, the petitioner asserted that he had already co-operated with the Vyalikaval Police after receiving notice and submitted all necessary documents.

Judicial Analysis on Bail and Forgery

Both the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the defacto complainant vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail, primarily arguing that in cases of forgery, custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the original forged and fabricated documents, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Maruti Nivruti Navale vs. State of Maharashtra and Another.

However, the Court distinguished the present case from the precedent cited. The Judge observed that in the relied-upon Supreme Court case, the accused had misused interim protection to scuttle the investigation and pressurize the complainant, and the forged documents were alleged to be in the accused’s possession.

In the case of Darshan P., the Court found a different set of facts:

• Location of the Document: The alleged forged ‘Work Done Certificate’ was stated to be in the possession of KSRTC, not the petitioner.
• Petitioner’s Cooperation: The Investigating Officer’s own report clearly indicated that Darshan P. had appeared at the police station upon notice, submitted the required documents, and these documents were already seized under PF No. 40/2023.

Given that the petitioner had already surrendered the relevant documents and the key forged document was with KSRTC, the Court deemed the necessity for custodial interrogation, primarily for recovery purposes, as having been mitigated.

Upholding Investigating Authority

The Court further addressed the common objection that granting anticipatory bail restricts police powers. Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2020), the Court reaffirmed the principle: “An order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail.“

Considering that the alleged offenses are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the petitioner is a permanent resident, and the dispute has strong undertones of a civil/arbitration matter, the Court concluded that Darshan P. was entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to stringent conditions to meet the objections of the prosecution.

Mandatory Conditions for Release

The petition was allowed, and in the event of arrest, Darshan P. shall be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the like sum.

The following conditions have been imposed:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of the order.
2. He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
3. He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when called for investigation.
4. He shall not commit similar offences.
5. He shall mark his attendance in the respondent police station on the 1st Sunday of every month between 11:00 AM and 5:00 PM until the filing of the final report.