Supreme Court: In an appeal against refusal to grant bail, the Division Bench of Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., granted bail to an attesting witness accused in a forged Power of Attorney case, holding that prolonged pre-trial incarceration was unnecessary where strict bail conditions could safeguard the prosecution’s interests.
Background
An FIR was registered against the appellant and other accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 326(3), and 61(2)(a), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution alleged that the complainant and the co-sharers of certain agricultural land had neither executed a power of attorney nor transferred the property. According to the investigation, the power of attorney and the subsequent sale deeds contained forged signatures.
The prosecution further alleged that the accused persons entered into a conspiracy to fabricate documents and transfer the land. The appellant was alleged to have acted as an attesting witness to the forged power of attorney and the sale deeds with knowledge that the documents were fabricated.
The appellant’s application for bail was rejected by the trial court as well as the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Reasoning and Decision
The Court considered the rival submissions and observed that the appellant had remained in incarceration for more than 11 months while the trial was still in progress, and noted that there appears no reason as to why the appellant should be kept in the continued confinement.
Addressing the prosecution’s apprehension that the appellant might indulge in similar activities if released, the Court asserted that such concerns could be adequately addressed by imposing strict conditions while granting bail.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order rejecting bail, and directed that the appellant be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional trial court considered appropriate. The Court further directed that the appellant should remain present before the trial court on every date of hearing unless specifically exempted.
[Raju Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 34363 of 2026, decided on 13-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Harsh Tikoo, Adv., with Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, AOR, Mr. Rahul Rai, Adv. and Mr. Ramkishan Saraswat, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, AOR
