1. These two applications are moved by the original complainant for cancellation of bail.

2. The accused persons, respondents in criminal application No.668 of 2011, are Deepak Uttamchand Jain, his wife Mrs. Santosh and son of Deepak.

3. Respondent in application No.358 of 2012 Mr. Ramchandra Murthy, is a practicing Chartered Accountant. He had audited the balance sheets of Skylite Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. for various years and had furnished auditor's report.

4. The order of grant of anticipatory bail under challenge in these two applications are passed by two different Sessions judges.

5. In these two applications the First Information Report, the point involved, the submissions advanced and documents to be referred are one and the same. In view of all these common factors both these applications are decided by this common judgment.

6. Heard respective Advocates at length, and perused the record annexed and tendered.

7. The commission of offence under sections 465, 467, 468, 474, 406, 420 read with section 34 of IPC is described in the FIR and during oral submissions in following brief summary :-

(a) A petition was filed by the complainant and his family members before Company Law Board against Deepak Jain and his family members – the accused.

(b) The petition is in relation to oppression mismanagement, misfeasances, malfeasance as regards the assets and the affairs of company, done by the accused.

(c) In said case filed by complainant before the Company Law Board, the respondents (accused) pleaded in defence that net worth of the company had turned eroded and negative.

(d) The complainant furnished a report of valuation, showing positive net worth and that company had adequate assets and complainant was frauded by the respondents.

(e) In order to deny and refute the complainant's claim the respondent Deepak Jain and his family members filed reply and furnished fresh valuation and certain documents.

(f) Deed of confirmation of equitable mortgage executed by accused for and on behalf of the company in favour of one amongst the creditors of company is relied upon, by the accused before the Company Law Board. According to the applicant said memorandum of equitable mortgage is forged document.

(g) The forgery is apparent in the background that the investigation has revealed that stamp paper on which said document was prepared was not issued to the company on purported date of its issue and the dates on said documents was executed. Though it is not anti-dated, apparently it is a forged document being a document drawn on a stamp paper which was not issued to the executant.

(h) The document in relation to which forgery is complained of is recorded on Page 119 in Criminal Application No.668 of 2011.

(i) The accused Mr.Ramkrishna Murty is Chartered Accountant. He is respondent

in Criminal Application No.352.

(h) Ramkrishna Murty is a partner of Laxman Jain, the Chartered Accountant Firm.

(k) The accused - Ramkrishna Murty has signed a forged auditor's report to cover and support forged balance sheets.

(l) The balance sheet was prepared for showing that the net worth of the company had eroded, are those balance sheets and auditor's report in that regard are anti-dated.

(m) The Auditor's report have been prepared in 2010 as it is apparent from the dates below signatures put at bottom of audit report. However, letter head on which the auditor's report is prepared contains telephone numbers printed on the letter head with eight digits.

(n) Telephone landline numbers of MTNL with eight digits commenced only in 2012.

(o) Therefore, accused Ramchander Murthy, Chartered Accountant as is party to fraud and forgery as to balance sheets committed by accused Deepak Jain and his family members and has also abated the said offence and hence he is also responsible for commission of said offence of forgery in balance sheet and auditor's report alongwith main accused.

8. Learned Advocate for the applicant has presented the case rai