Bail rejected for advocate in forgery conspiracy due to prima facie active facilitation, criminal antecedents, professional misuse aggravating gravity, and witness interference risk despite delayed arrest.

JUDGMENT :

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

1. The present First Bail Application has been filed by the Applicant, Naziya, who is presently in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 120 of 2024, dated 29.04.2024, registered at Police Station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case, as emerging from the FIR and the material placed on record, is that the informant alleged fraudulent execution of sale deeds in respect of her land by impersonating the true owner and using forged documents. It is alleged that certain accused persons, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, prepared forged documents and executed sale transactions in favour of third parties, thereby causing wrongful loss to the informant.

3. The role attributed to the present Applicant is that she, being an advocate by profession, drafted and facilitated the execution of the impugned sale deeds. It has been alleged that she was not merely a formal scribe but was actively involved in the conspiracy along with the co-accused persons.

4. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was not named in the FIR at the initial stage. During the course of investigation, however, her name came to be introduced as an accused.

5. The record further indicates that a charge sheet dated 17.11.2024 was filed in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Kotdwar, on 30.11.2024, but the Applicant was not arrayed as an accused in the said charge sheet.

6. The case thereafter proceeded to trial against the charge-sheeted accused persons, and charges were framed on 15.04.2025. It is stated that the trial has commenced and four prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

7. From the material placed on record, it appears that the said witnesses have not attributed any specific overt act to the Applicant except stating that she drafted and attested the sale deed in question in her professional capacity as an advocate.

8. The Applicant came to be arrested subsequently on 12.12.2025, after a considerable lapse of time from the date of the FIR and even after the commencement of trial.

9. The bail application of the Applicant was rejected by the learned A.C.J.M., Kotdwar and thereafter by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, vide order dated 22.12.2025.

10. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that her implication is an afterthought, as she was not named in the FIR.

11. It is contended that even after completion of investigation, the police did not find sufficient material against the Applicant to array her as an accused in the charge sheet, which itself demonstrates the absence of incriminating material.

12. Learned counsel further submits that the trial had already commenced and several witnesses have been examined, yet none of them have attributed any role to the Applicant beyond the drafting of the document in her professional capacity as an advocate.

13. It is argued that mere drafting or attestation of a document by an advocate does not constitute participation in a criminal conspiracy, particularly in the absence of any material indicating knowledge of alleged fraud or active involvement in the offence.

14