The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seriousness of the alleged offences, including forgery and related offences, can influence the court's decision on anticipatory bail applications.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. Since both these anticipatory bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. Applicants Smt. Kusum Lata and Ravi Kant seek anticipatory bail in FIR No. RC0072023S0006, under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station-CBI SPE, Dehradun, District Dehradun.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The FIR, in the instant case, has been lodged pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 14.11.2022, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1253 of 2013, Santosh Kumar Bagla Vs. Senior Superintendant of Police, Nainital and Others (“the petition”). The issue in that petition was taken up on a complaint, in which it was stated that the judgments dated 14.10.2004, 22.08.2004 and 26.07.2005, of this Court were placed before the Company Law Board, but these orders were never passed by this Court. They were forged. The issue relates to M/s Anghaila Housing (Pvt.) Ltd. (“the company”) which was incorporated on 22.01.1970. It had land in District Dehradun. There were dispute with regard to the nature of land. On multiple occasions, the State Government had declared that land as forest land, but the company was objecting to it.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that there is no evidence against the applicants; they did not forge any order of this Court; they did not submit any forged order of this Court before any authority, whatsoever; the applicant-Smt. Kusum Lata was the director of the company till 2005; if any Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into by her in the Year 2003 with Janardan and Shyam Sundar, that was during her capacity as the Director of the company. It is argued that the Company Law Petition, in which the forged orders were allegedly produced, had already been decided on 25.05.2004. It is also argued that the applicants are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, it is a case fit for anticipatory bail.

6. Learned counsel for the CBI would submit that the applicants, under a conspiracy, wanted to grab the property of the company. Initially, Ms. Mausumi Bhattacharjee and Sudhir Gupta were the directors of the company. On 04.10.1999, Sudhir Gupta had resigned from the Directorship, but, based on a communication made by Sudhir Gupta on 26.09.2001, to the Registrar of the company (ROC), the resignation of Ms. Mausumi Bhattacharjee, as Director of the company was accepted, and three persons were inducted as Directors of the company, which includes the applicant-Smt. Kusum Lata also. It is argued that, subsequently, Ms. Mausumi Bhattacharjee filed Company Law Petition No. 70 of 2003 challenging her resignation as Director of the company, as well as induction of the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata and two other persons, namely, Naresh Kumar and Ram Saran Singh, as the Directors of the company. It was allowed on 25.05.2005, wherein, it was held by the Company Law Board that based on forged communication and documents, Ms. Mausumi Bhattacharjee was shown to have been removed from the Directorship of the company, and the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata and two others were inducted as the Directors of the company, based on forged documents.

7. It is argued on behalf of the CBI that it is in that interregnum period that on 03.04.2003, the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata entered into MoU with Janardan and Shyam Sundar for the sale of the land of the company. She took money also. After the decision of the Company Law Board, it is argued that on behalf of the applicant Smt. Kusum Lata, the forged orders were shown to the various buyers by applicant Ravi Kant, including one Inderjeet Singh, so as to claim that still she is the Director of the company. Applicant Ravi Kant is husband of the applicant Kusum Lata.

8. Learned counsel for the CBI would also submit that, in fact, one Dharam Pal filed a petition before the Company Law Board for recalling the order date