Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Santosh Kumar Bagla vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 February, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Anticipatory Bail Application No.984 of 2023
Dr. Santosh Kumar Bagla ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant
Khanna and Ms. Garima Thapa, Advocates for the applicant.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, AGA for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR/Case
Crime No.191 of 2004 dated 20.11.2004, under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station
Cantt. Kotwali, Dehradun, District Dehradun.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, which was lodged
pursuant to the order passed on the application under
Sections 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
("the Code") the applicant along with the co-accused
prepared forged agreement to sale and Memorandum of
Understanding with regard to Anghalia Housing Pvt.
Ltd. ("the company"). The FIR records that, in fact, the
Supervisor of the company was also threatened by the
applicant.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
applicant would submit that the applicant was, in fact,
Director of the company; it is the informant, who had
committed forgery and was forged three judgments
namely, (i) Judgment dated 14.10.2004, allegedly
rendered in WPMB No.507 of 2003, M/S Anghalia
Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State and others; (ii) Judgment
dated 27.08.2004, allegedly rendered in WPMB No.1224
of 2003, M/S Anghalia Housing Pvt. Ltd. and others vs.
State and others; and (iii) Judgment dated 26.07.2005,
allegedly rendered in WPMB No.847 of 2004, Vikas
Kumar Taliwal and others vs. State and others.
5. It is argued that the applicant made a
complaint about it and this Court on 14.11.2022
passed an order in Criminal Writ Petition No.1253 of
2013 and directed the CBI to investigate the role of the
informant and four others. It is argued that based on it,
the CBI has already registered an FIR against the
informant and others bearing CBI FIR
No.CBI,SPE,2023/RC/0072023S0006 dated
14.03.2023. It is argued that charge-sheet has already
been filed. During investigation, the applicant was
protected by the order of the Court.
6. Learned State counsel admits that by order of
this Court an FIR has already been lodged with regard
to forgery of judgments of this Court against the
informant and others and the investigation is being
conducted by the CBI. Learned State counsel gives a
statement that the applicant is not to be arrested and
the charge-sheet has been filed.
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view
that this is a case, in which, the applicant should be
granted anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail
application deserves to be allowed.
8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall
be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond
with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned. In addition to it, the
applicant shall also comply with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not approach any witness
in any manner, whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the concerned
court.
(iii) The applicant shall deposit his passport with
the court concerned. The passport may only be
returned by the order of the court concerned.
In case, if the applicant does not have
passport, he shall give an undertaking to that
effect to the court concerned.
(iv) The applicant shall also give an undertaking on
(i) & (ii) above.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
19.02.2024
Sanjay
