Point of Law: Rejection of Bail - False COVID positive report - Applicant’s presence is required through his custodial interrogation to trace out the links in the chain of the alleged conspiracy for making of the false COVID 19 report and recovery of devices used in making such a forged certificate.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Malhotra, J.

1. The applicant vide the present application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No. 151/2021, Police Station Special Cell (Lodhi Colony, Delhi) registered under Sections 120B/198/199/200/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, submitting to the effect that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and has no role whatsoever to play in relation to the allegations levelled against him qua the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B/198/199/200/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The genesis of the FIR in the instant case is an interim bail application filed by the son of the present applicant, named Yogesh @ Tunda in relation to FIR No.252/2018 Police Station Alipur under Sections 3 & 4 of the MCOC Act, wherein the son of the applicant herein filed an application seeking grant of interim bail on 28.05.2021 dated 27.05.2021 on the ground that his father, i.e., the applicant herein, had tested positive for COVID-19. The learned Trial Court directed the verification of the said report and it was found that the COVID-19 report was forged as the original report was negative for COVID-19 in as much as vide the reply filed under signatures of the ACP/NDR (Special Cell, Delhi) Hridaya Bhushan, dated 28.05.2021 to the interim bail application filed by Yogesh @ Tunda, it was submitted to the effect that the actual COVID report was negative and the same had been verified through mail from Spice Health Headquarters, through physical verification from the testing lab as well as through the online access. The report from the Spice Health has been placed along with this status report that had been submitted by the State to the present application along with the reply to the interim bail application filed by Yogesh @ Tunda on the premise that his father, i.e., the applicant herein, is suffering from COVID 19. The report dated 26.05.2021 of the Spice Health Lab in relation to Rajender, aged 53 years, a Male with a Mobile No.8383968884, shows a negative result in the SARS-CoV-2 Qualitative RT PCR test of the said Rajender, the Sample ID is mentioned as being 0708501579954 in relation to which the sample is indicated to have been received on 25.05.2021. The interim bail application filed by Yogesh, son of the present applicant herein dated 27.05.2021 was annexed, however, the Spice Health Lab report in relation to SARS-CoV-2 Qualitative RT PCR test of Rajender with Mobile No. 8178861975 in relation to sample ID No. 0708501579954 showed a positive result for the same.

3. Vide order dated 29.05.2021, the learned Trial Court called for a written explanation from the counsel for the applicant in the matter in view of the report of the Investigating Officer that a forged document had been filed by Yogesh @ Tunda to avail the grant of interim bail. The learned counsel for Yogesh @ Tunda, Mr. J.K. Sharma submitted his written explanation dated 07.06.2021 to the effect that one person named Gaurav S/o Sh. Ashok Aggarwal had approached him to move the interim bail application and that he, the counsel, had also represented the said Gaurav in his bail application in FIR 14/19, Police Station Alipur under Sections 307/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 in which case vide order dated 07.04.2021 in Bail Appln. No. 996/2021, the Court had granted bail to the said Gaurav and that that Gaurav had referred the interim bail application of the accused Yogesh @ Tunda and had sent a medical certificate confirming that the father of the accused Yogesh @ Tunda was COVID positive. Through his explanation, Mr. J.K. Sharma also submitted that on a general inquiry he was assured that the medical document was verifiable and a genuine document and as a counsel, he neither had reasons nor resources to verify the authenticity of the document in question, and that he was also instructed to and