A person who is only a witness to a forged document cannot be held liable for the forgery unless there is evidence of their direct involvement in the creation of the forged document.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

Crl.O.P.No.26096 of 2021

M.Thiyagarajan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The State Rep.by

The Inspector of Police,

Team 18, Central Crime Branch,

Vepary, Chennai – 600 007.

Crime No.214 of 2021

... Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of

his arrest in Crime No.214 of 2021 on the file of the respondent

police.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ferdinand

For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the

respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section

465, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC in Crime No.214 of 2021, on the file of

the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that one Nareshkumar/defacto

complainant who represents for the Gopal Narayanan is residing in

London, lodged a complaint before the respondent police stating that

one Gopal Narayanan purchased a property bearing Document No.3645 of

1982 from the Saminatha Archagar who is the power of attorney for

Balakrishnan and the said document was registered before the

Saidapet Register office on 31.01.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner

along with others created a fake documents for the above said land

and executed a sale deed impersonating as Balakrishnan in favour of

one Munirathinam bearing document No.180 of 1980 before the

Saidapet Register Office, later, the said Munirathinam executed a

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

sale deed in favour of D.Mohan vide document No. 1525 of 1990 on

14.05.1990 before the Saidapet Register Office with the witnesses.

Thereafter, D.Mohan executed a sale deed in favour of one Narasimman

vide document No.5242 of 2001, then, he got a Patta in 1132 of 2002

dated 21.05.2002. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged by the

prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He

further submitted that petitioner was only a witness to the sale deed

executed in the year 2001 and to prove the same, the petitioner has

produced stamp paper in which the petitioner has signed as witness

and he is no way connected in this case. Hence, the learned counsel

prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that

investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed the

grant of bail.

5. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case and also

the fact that sale deed reveals that petitioner is only as a witness

to the document, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of

fifteen (15) days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of

the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the

learned Judicial Magistrate CCB, Chennai, on condition that the

petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand Only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the

satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who

intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate

concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs

and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned

may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure

their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on

Wednesday at 10.30p.m for a period of four weeks and thereafter as

and when required for an interrogatio