The court established that anticipatory bail requires careful consideration of the seriousness of allegations and the potential for witness tampering.

ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

1. Since all these bail applications are arising out of different FIRs involving the same facts and questions of law, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, all these bail applications are taken up together and are being decided by this common order.

2. Counsel submits that for the same cause and similar nature of allegation, four different FIRs were registered against the petitioner wherein allegation has been levelled against the petitioner that he has concocted and forged certain pattas which were never issued by the Ajmer Development Authority (for short, ‘ADA’). Counsel submits that the petitioner was arrested in the FIR No. 169/2021 registered with Police Station Ganj Ajmer on 24.05.2021 wherein he remained at Police Station for a period of one week and thereafter, he was granted bail on 11.03.2022. Counsel submits that the petitioner was very much available with the Investigating Agency at the time of his arrest in the said case. Counsel submits that prior to arrest of the petitioner by the orders of the Superintendent of Police, investigation of all the four FIRs was clubbed but even then the petitioner was not arrested in the other three FIRs bearing Nos. 314/2021, 163/2021 and 204/2021 registered with three different Police Stations namely Krishanganj Ajmer; Ganj Ajmer; and Civil Lines, Ajmer. Counsel submits that an accused like the petitioner cannot be allowed to be arrested in subsequent FIRs merely because the recovery is likely to be effected at his instance. Counsel submits that once the petitioner was arrested in connection with the FIR No. 169/2021 registered with Police Station Ganj, Ajmer, the entire investigation was done. Counsel submits that except one patta no other document was recovered at his instance and now he cannot be allowed to be arrested in three other FIRs only because the Police wants to arrest for the purpose of recovery of other documents. Counsel submits that lodging of repeated FIRs for the same allegations amounts to abuse of the process of law. Counsel submits that as per Section 269 SS and 269 ST of the Income Tax Act, the maximum amount, in cash, can be given of Rs.2,00,000/- only but herein the instant case, more than Rs. 67 Lakhs is alleged to have been given by the complainant, therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be believed that such huge amount in lakhs was given to the petitioner in cash. Counsel submits that the prosecution/investigating agency is not clear about the creator of the forged documents. Hence under these circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Counsel submits that though the petitioner has appeared for his interrogation, as per the interim order passed by this Court and he has been interrogated by the Investigating Officer on several occasions but nothing concreted has been collected by the Investigating Agency from his interrogation. Hence under these circumstances also, his arrest is no more required in other three FIRs. Counsel submits that still the petitioner is ready for his interrogation, if required by the Investigating Officer. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, indulgence of anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(1) Jawahar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1989 WLN (UC) 396.

(2) Uday Chand and Ors. Vs. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister, J and K Ors. reported in 1983 (2) SCC 417.

(3) Daljeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1990 WLN (UC) 29.

(4) T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181.

(5) Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1935.

(6) Abhishek Singh Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1936.

(7) Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. State of UP and Anr. (Writ Petition(s) Criminal No. 197/2021.

(8) Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2