Mohd. Akram vs State of Haryana

M.M. Singh Bedi, J.—The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of complainant Kanwaljit Singh alleging that the petitioner, in the capacity as a tenant in the house of the complainant, had forged agreement of sale dated 10.11.2010, alleged to have been executed by grand father of the complainant. On the basis of the agreement of sale dated 10.11.2010, the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance. The petitioner is also alleged to have forged an affidavit of the complainant with an objective to get the electric meter transferred in his name to defeat the right of the complainant. The documents have already been taken into possession during the course of investigation.

Learned State counsel has opposed the petition for pre-arrest bail contending that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation. It is not out of place to observe here that the FIR has been registered under the directions of the court u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. The allegations are pertaining to forging of documents, which have already been recovered by the Prosecution agency. Till date no report of any expert pertaining to the forged documents seems to have been obtained. Learned State counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has denied his signatures on the affidavit regarding transfer of the electric meter. Since the affidavit has already been taken into possession, it does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation.

The petition for pre-arrest bail has been seriously contested by counsel for the complainant on the ground that the petitioner has made an attempt to transfer the electric meter in his name by submitting a forged affidavit bearing the alleged signatures of the complainant.

After hearing counsel for the parties, it appears that the commission of offence pertaining to the said affidavit will be a debatable issue in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, . It is not out of place to observe here that no wrongful gain has been achieved by the petitioner on the basis of the alleged forged affidavit as the electric meter was never transferred in the name of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 7.4.2014 is hereby confirmed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation.