Grant of regular bail based on completion of investigation, interim relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and petitioner's undertaking not to influence the trial or abscond.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral) - CRM-37205-2021

Present application has been filed for placing on record Annexures P-14 to P-16.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures P-14 to P-16 are permitted to be taken on record.

CRM-43019-2021

Present application has been filed for placing on record Annexures P-17 to P-23.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures P-17 to P-23 are permitted to be taken on record.

CRM-44330-2021

Learned senior counsel for the applicant-complainant prays that he be allowed to withdraw the present application with liberty to avail appropriate remedy if any needed at the later stage.

Ordered accordingly.

CRM-M-45552-2021

2. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.83 dated 28.03.2017 registered under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Daba, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner had got FIR registered against the present complainant being FIR No.236 dated 01.11.2014 alleging various allegations. During investigation of the said FIR, the Investigating Agency found enough evidence against present complainant to file a challan against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that allegation in the present FIR against the petitioner is that the complainant in the present case, who is accused in FIR No.236 dated 01.11.2014, moved an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C for the grant of anticipatory bail before the trial Court and during the hearing of the said application, an order purported to have been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Crl.) No.1313 of 2013 dated 13.01.2013 was presented to show that the conduct of the complainant in the present case (who was accused in FIR No.236 dated 01.11.2014) was not above the board and an enquiry had been ordered to verify his conduct and keeping in view the said fact, bail petition filed by Sh. Naresh Devgan Sharma (complainant in the present case) was dismissed by the trial Court on 18.11.2014 after which, the complainant approached this Court through CRM-M-40018-2014 for the grant of anticipatory bail, which was also dismissed, keeping in view of the same alleged order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that later on, it transpires that the order presented before the Court purported to have been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Crl.) No.1313 of 2013 dated 13.01.2013 was fake and on the directions of the competent Court of law, the present FIR i.e. FIR No.83 dated 28.03.2017 was registered against the petitioner and one Vijay Kumar Goyal i.e. the co- accused , who is a lawyer by profession and two other accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that initially after the investigation, the police came to conclusion that the petitioner as well as co- accused are not guilty of the allegation of presenting a fake order before the competent Court of law and filed a cancellation report on 10.05.2018 for cancellation of FIR No.83 dated 28.03.2017.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the petitioner thought that he has been exonerated, the petitioner did not pursue the said case any further but it was later on found by the petitioner that the competent Court of law did not accept the said cancellation report and ordered further enquiry after which, the investigating agency, submitted a challan against the petitioner as well as co-accused Sh. Vijay Kumar Goyal along with two other in FIR No.83 dated 28.03.2017.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that co- accused Vijay Kumar Goyal filed an application for anticipatory bail initially before the trial Court and thereafter before this Court and on being unsuccessful before