The main legal point established in the judgment is that the circumstances of the case, including the lack of necessity for the applicant's arrest during the investigation and the electronic nature of the evidence, justified granting bail to the applicant.

Headnote:
Regular Bail - Criminal Procedure - CrPC 439 - IPC 420/467/468/471/120B/34 - The court discussed the relevance of the accused not being arrested during the investigation, the role of the employer in the alleged crime, and the electronic nature of the evidence in granting bail to the applicant.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought regular bail in a case related to fraudulent transactions involving forged documents. The applicant was accused of playing an active role in the conspiracy to defraud a bank by scanning and printing forged documents at the instance of his employer.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant was entitled to bail due to the circumstances of the case, including the fact that he was not arrested during the investigation, the role of his employer in the alleged crime, and the electronic nature of the evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail in light of the allegations against him and the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of necessity for the applicant's arrest during the investigation, the role of the employer in the alleged crime, and the electronic nature of the evidence as key factors in granting bail.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant with specific conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and attending all trial court hearings.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC"] for regular bail in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 56/2016, dated 11.05.2016, registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, South East, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"].

2. The original charge sheet was filed under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B/34 of the IPC on 22.05.2020. The accused named in the original charge sheet were Ishma Arora [hereinafter, "Ishma"] and Nitin Arora [hereinafter, "Nitin"]. The applicant was not named in the FIR or in the original charge sheet.

3. The applicant and two other persons have, however, been named in a supplementary charge sheet filed on 07.04.2021. The supplementary charge sheet was also filed without arresting the applicant.

4. The proceedings concern a complaint by the Bank of Maharashtra ["the Bank"] against Ishma, the proprietor of one Bankay Behari Trading Company, and her husband Nitin, to the effect that they have availed credit facilities from the Bank by mortgaging their property on the basis of forged documents. The complainant-Bank has alleged that the property has also been mortgaged to other banks by the same persons in different names.

5. As far as the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged that he was employed by one Sandeep Khera [hereinafter, "Sandeep"], who has also been named in the same supplementary charge sheet, and is accused of having played an active role, in conspiracy with Ishma and Nitin, to defraud the complainant-Bank. As far as the present applicant is concerned, the supplementary charge sheet records that he is an expert in operating a computer and has knowledge of scanning and printing. He was offered work by Sandeep in his office. Sandeep arranged blank e-stamp certificates and blank non-judicial papers which were used for preparation of forged titled documents. The applicant was engaged in scanning and printing the contents of the documents with the help of computer, scanner, photocopiers and other gadgets, and preparing copies by deleting the details in the original documents and inserting details, as well as by putting his fingerprints and thumb impression thereon. The applicant is accused of acting at the instance of Sandeep, in furtherance of the conspiracy with the other co-accused in this manner. It is also stated that the fingerprint examination report confirms that the fingerprints of the applicant are found on the documents in question.

6. The applicant first applied for regular bail before the Sessions Court, which was rejected vide the order dated 22.06.2021. He sought setting aside of the said order by way of BAIL APPLN. 2263/2021 filed before this Court [Suresh Kumar vs. The NCT of Delhi], which was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.07.2021. He thereafter filed BAIL APPLN. 2505/2021 under Section 438 of the CrPC for anticipatory bail before this Court, which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.07.2021, with liberty to move a fresh application after the applicant surrenders. The applicant thereafter surrendered on 22.07.2021 but his application for bail was dismissed by the Trial Court on 18.09.2021. The applicant has thereafter moved the present application.

7. Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, submits that, the supplementary charge sheet having been filed without arrest of the applicant, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in terms of the judgments of this Court in Court On Its Own Motion vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [Crl.M.(M) 3875/2003, decided on 28.01.2004] and the Division Bench decision in Court On Its Own Motion vs. State [Crl. Ref. 4/2017, decided on 27.10.2017]. Mr. Dubey has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2022) 1 SCC 676, Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I, through Director (2021) SCC Online SC 941, and the orders dated 07.10.2021 and 16.12.20