Forging Orders Of An Arbitrator A 'Serious Offence': Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of producing a forged and fabricated order purportedly passed in an arbitration proceeding, before the Delhi Police.

Justice Navin Chawla said that forging an order, which may be of an arbitrator, is a serious offence.

The court denied bail to one Vipul Jain, who denied the allegation, and observed that who fabricated the purported order needs to be investigated and ascertained.

The FIR was registered last year for the offences under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using as a genuine forged document or original record), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The complainant alleged that three unknown persons, including Jain, came from a Finance Company from which he had taken a loan for purchasing a car, along with a female and a male Police Officer, started quarrelling with him and snatching the car keys after he failed to pay loan instalments.

It was later discovered that the persons who had come produced a fabricated and forged paper purporting itself to be an order passed by an Arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding authorizing them to take possession of the car.

The said document was later found to be forged and fabricated. Dismissing Jain's plea seeking anticipatory bail in the case, the court said:

“While there can be no dispute on the fact that the complainant himself may have been guilty of not having paid the instalments in accordance with the Loan Agreement with the Finance Company, however, the recovery of the vehicle can only be made in accordance with the law. Forging an order, may be of an alleged arbitrator, is a serious offence.”

As the court was informed that the co-accused, who had accompanied Jain, was also taken into custody and was later released on regular bail, Justice Chawla said that merely because no action was against the erring Police Officers cannot be a reason for granting anticipatory bail to Jain at the stage of the investigation.

“As far as the question of no loss being caused due to the acts of the applicant is concerned, it is also a matter of trial and cannot be considered at this stage,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.Varun Singh, Mr.Akshay Dev, Mr.Ytharth Kumar, Mr.Abhijeet Kr. Panday, Mr.Rohan Chandra, Ms.Smriti Wadhwa & Mr.Pankaj Kumar Madi, Advs

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Aman Usman, APP

Title: VIPUL JAIN v. STATE THROUGH GOVT OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 53