HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.836 of 2025 Smt. Kusum Lata …..….....Applicant Versus Central Bureau of Investigation ….….Respondent Present:-

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the CBI.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR RC0072023S0006, under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station CBI, SPE, Dehradun based on which charge-sheet under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 471 and 474 IPC has been submitted. She has sought her release on bail.

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

3. 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 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 Angelia Housing Pvt. Ltd. (“the company”), which was incorporated on 22.01.1970. It had land in District Dehradun. There were disputes 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.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence against the applicant; some circumstances are being placed against the applicant, which in no manner, connect the applicant with any offence. He submits that the applicant did not ever execute any Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”); the MoU was never recovered in original; the applicant did not receive any money from anyone; according to the CBI, there were three High Court’s orders, which were forged, but only two were recovered; that too not in original and Forensic Science Laboratory Report does not establish authorship of those orders. He also submits that there was an FIR lodged with regard to forging of order dated 02.03.2005 of Company Law Board, with regard to which, FIR No.507 of 2010 was lodged at Police Station, Kalkaji, Delhi, in which, charge-sheet has already been filed against Dharmpal Yadav alias Fauzi and Naresh Kumar. He submits that these two persons are, in fact, the actual investors, who sponsored Janardhan Prashad and Shyam Sunder Yadav, who are party in the MoU. It is argued that the applicant is in custody since October, 2024; she is a woman; the co-accused is her husband.

5. Learned counsel for the CBI submits that it is a deep hatched conspiracy, which was initially surfaced when Sudhir Gupta filed return in Registrar of Company (“ROC”) informing thereby that the Director of the company Ms. Mausami Bhattacharjee has resigned and three persons were inducted as Directors of the company including the applicant. On it, Ms. Mausami Bhattacharjee filed a complaint in the Company Law Board, where it was held that the return filed by Sudhir Gupta was forged and Ms. Mausami Bhattacharjee was still Director of the company; the applicant was not the Director. It is argued that in order to dupe the investors and at the behest of the applicant, three orders of the High Court were forged; those orders were faxed to the buyers, from a shop, which was adjacent to the house of the applicant; the buyers were persuaded to invest in the company and the applicant and her husband took Rs.75 Lakhs. It is argued that, in fact, in the Company Law Board’s proceedings also, it is the applicant and her husband, who were doing pairavi; there was another case of the company relating to orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer; the case reached up to this Court. It is argued that in this Court also, though the proceedings were through one Naresh Kumar, but, in fact, it is the applicant and her husband, who were doing pairavi, as wa