Patiala House Court: In a bail application under Section 4391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) by the accused for grant of regular bail, who was accused of forging the signature of Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra and sending a legal notice to Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of IndusInd Bank, Devender Kumar Jangala, ASJ, dismissed the bail application and denied bail.
The case of the accused person was that he was falsely implicated and that initially FIR was registered under Section 419, 420, 468, 469 and 4712 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and during investigation, Section 467 IPC3 was invoked and no justification was advanced for invoking it as there was no forgery of any valuable security as defined under Section 30 of IPC4.
Factual Matrix
A complaint was filed by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra (‘complainant’), alleging that someone had created a forged legal notice and sent it to the Managing Director and CEO, IndusInd Bank Ltd. and other Senior dignitaries of the bank to release the funds in the name of Preach Well Technologies Pvt. Ltd. for obtaining wrongful gain in his name. It was also alleged that fabricated email and forged signatures of the complainant have been used. The present accused was main conspirator who created fake email ID impersonating the complainant and sent the legal notice from the email ID, which was created using a mobile number, which was recovered from the possession of the accused. He was accused of creating forged ID proofs in the name of Directors of alleged firm to impersonate as real Directors of the company. The accused was also reported to be habitual offender involved in more than 40 cases of cheating and fraud.
Decision
The Court said that the prosecution story was supported with the disclosure statements of other accused persons who alleged that the accused lured them to become Directors of the alleged firm to get the funds of the said firm released. The Court said that the investigation conducted, and the incriminating recovery made by the investigating agency clearly pointed out the commission of alleged offence by the accused. The Court stated that the allegations against the accused were grave and serious and that he is a habitual offender involved in more than 40 cases of cheating and fraud. The Court also noted that the investigation is at the crucial stage and the chargesheet was not yet filed. The Court stated that though the accused has the Constitutional right to life and liberty as per Constitution of India and the liberty of the accused cannot be curtailed without the settled principle of law, however, the Court must maintain a balance between the rights of the accused and interest of society. The accused is a habitual offender involved in 40 other cases of same nature, therefore, if he is released on bail, there is every likelihood of repeating the offence, as has been repeatedly done by him. Hence, keeping in view the interest of society, the accused was not entitled to bail. Thus, the Court dismissed the bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC moved by the accused for grant of regular bail.
[State v. Mohit Goyal, 2024 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 15, Decided on: 24-07-2024]
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. Section 319, 318, 336(3), 336(4), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Section 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
4. Section 2(31) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023