RAMESH GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that co-accused Jaideep Singh along with certain other accused persons prepared forged allotment letter in the name of his mother and after her death, got recorded his and other siblings names in the revenue record and sold the land to various other persons. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a deed writer working in the SDM Court, Sri Vijaynagar and he has simply written application on behalf of Jaideep Singh to get his and his siblings names recorded in the revenue record after the death of his mother. It is argued that there is no evidence to the effect that the petitioner hatched conspiracy with co-accused Jaideep Singh and others in preparing forged documents. It is also argued that name of the petitioner has also not been figured in the FIR but the police are trying to arrest the petitioner without there being any evidence against him, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the anticipatory bail application and argued that from the police investigation, it is found that the petitioner helped co-accused Jaideep Singh in preparing forged allotment letter by affixing forged seal of the concerned officials. It is further argued that the police, during the course of investigation, have collected call details, which suggest that the petitioner was in regular touch of co-accused Jaideep Singh and other accused persons at the time of submission of forged documents before the concerned authorities. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, submitted that since involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime has been prima facie proved, he is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.