The bar under section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC applies only when the forgery is committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court.

In the present application preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in para-1 is as under:

“1. That the petitioner craves indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for the following reliefs :-

(a) An appropriate writs, orders, directions directing the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Begusarai, for filing a criminal complaint in relation to a forged bail-bond furnished by accused Manoj Kumar Singh, the Respondent no.2 falsely disclosing therein the petitioner to be his one of the bailors and forging his signature as well as Respondent no.3 under criminal conspiracy with him appeared in the said bail-bond as the informant and subscribing false certificate about the correctness and genuineness of bailors i.e. the petitioner.

(b) Any other reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled for giving complete justice to him.”

2. It is contended by Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner that some time in the year 2014 the petitioner was shocked on coming to know that the sessions court, Begusarai has issued a notice directing him to produce an accused, namely, Manoj Kumar Singh, an absconder in relation to Sessions Trial No.227 of 2002 on the ground that he had stood as surety for the said Manoj Kumar Singh. The petitioner, thereafter, collected information in the matter and came to know that Manoj Kumar Singh @ Karu is an accused in a case giving rise to Sessions Trial No.227 of 2002 for the offences punishable under sections 447, 323 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The said case was pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Begusarai and while the trial was pending the said Manoj Kumar Singh @ Karu had been granted bail on 19.8.2004 with a direction to furnish bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount. To comply with the direction of the court bail bond was furnished on behalf of the accused on 19.8.2004 purportedly signed by the petitioner as one of the sureties. In the said bail bond one Bhola Bhagat son of Asarfi Bhagat had certified that the sureties of the bail bond, their particular and address as given in the bail bond and the certificate granted by them are correct as well as said Bhola Bhagat had put his signature in support of his certificate as aforesaid.

3. Mr. Lal has further contended that the said Bhola Bhagat is the next door neighbour and his son Pankaj Kumar is also one of the accused in the said Sessions Trial No.227 of 2002 and on 19.8.2004, he had also been granted bail and had furnished bail bond for release of Pankaj Kumar. In the case of Pankaj Kumar, Bhola Bhagat stood as one of the sureties. Subsequently, the accused Manoj Kumar Singh @ Karu misused the privilege of bail in result whereof his bail bond was cancelled and the sureties were forfeited. It is further contended that in 2011, while Sessions Trial No.227 of 2002 was pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-II, Begusarai, the court called upon the petitioner to procure surrender of the accused Manoj Kumar Singh @ Karu failing which appropriate action was ordered to be taken against the petitioner.

4. It has been contended by Mr. Lal that on collecting the aforesaid information, the petitioner made an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Begusarai stating the facts as aforesaid. In the petition the petitioner specifically asserted that he had never signed the bail bond and with the bail bond neither his identity card nor photo is there. He also brought it to the notice of the court that Bhola Bhagat, the respondent no.3 had appeared as the informant for the sureties and his certificate is quite fake and forged.

5. Mr. Lal has contended that in spite of bringing facts of forgery having committed upon the court in furnishing bail bond of Manoj Kumar Singh @ Karu, the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Begusarai simply exempted the petitio