The Court can grant anticipatory bail for a limited period even after the chargesheet has been filed, emphasizing the need for the Trial Court to consider the evidence and seriousness of the allegations.

1. This order shall dispose of bail application No.968/2011 titled Sharad Kumar Aggarwal –vs- State and Crl.M.C.1530/2011 titled Arun Mehra –vs- State of NCT of Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a civil suit was filed by one Vishesh Jain, r/o C-48, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh in the High Court of Delhi, which was numbered as CS(OS) No.1136/2005. This was a suit for recovery of Rs. 24,22,500/- from one Arun Mehra and ors., including M/s. Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd.. The defendant, Arun Mehra and his wife, Seema Mehra had contended before the High Court that the suit, which was filed by Vishesh Jain, was based on forged and fabricated documents/agreements purported to have been executed by them. The High Court directed Vishesh Jain to appear in Court, but he failed to do so. Even the processes issued against him could not be served for want of correct address. The suit was dismissed by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) S.N. Dhingra with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, however, while dismissing the suit, the High Court directed the Crime Branch to investigate the whereabouts of Vishesh Jain and unearth the conspiracy between the plaintiff, Vishesh Jain and the defendant no.4, M/s. Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. to file the said suit on the basis of the forged documents.

3. In terms of the order of the High Court, an FIR No.246/2008 was registered on 7.8.2008 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC by PS:Tilak Marg, New Delhi and the matter was investigated by the Special Operation Squad of Crime Branch. During the course of investigation, necessary evidence was gathered and the statements of witnesses were recorded, including that of Arun Mehra and B.L. Wali, Advocate, who is purported to have appeared on behalf of Vishesh Jain. It transpired during the course of investigation that the papers, on the basis of which the suit on behalf of Vishesh Jain was filed, were supplied by an advocate by the name of Anuradha, a junior of the petitioner. It also transpired that the Vakalatanama was filed by the present petitioner for appearing before the Court for his client, R.K. Nanda and some other papers, including the written statement filed by him on behalf of the said person were bearing the signatures of R.K. Nanda, which were taken from somewhere and affixed on the Vakalatanama, written statement and the accompanying affidavit. The relevant papers were collected by the Investigating Agency and they were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the opinion of an expert, who gave an adverse report, which prima facie, confirmed the documents being forged and fabricated in which involvement of one R.K. Nanda, Director of Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Sharad Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate, was prima facie established.

4. From the investigation conducted by the Police, it was also established that Vishesh Jain is a non-existent person and the suit had been filed on the basis of forged documents by Sharad Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate, the present petitioner in collusion with Directors of Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. It is in respect of this very suit that the present petitioner has filed the application for the grant of anticipatory bail as his application was rejected by Mr. H.S. Sharma, the learned Sessions Judge on 11.5.2011, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. The petition came up for hearing for the first time on 19.7.2011, when it got adjourned to 20.7.2011. As the chargesheet in the matter had already been filed, the petitioner was directed to approach the learned Trial Court for the purpose of grant of bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the two judgments of the Apex Court titled Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. –vs- State of Bihar & Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 77 and Ravindra Saxena –vs- State of Rajasthan, (2010)1 SCC 684 to contend that mere filing of the chargesheet against the petitioner should not be a ground to disentitle him the grant of anticipatory bail. According