"Required To Ascertain As To Who Prepared Forged Bail Order": Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Woman

The Delhi High Court last week denied anticipatory bail to a woman, who is involved with a matter wherein her estranged husband had placed reliance on a forged court order in bail proceedings against him before the Delhi High Court.

The Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta denied the pre-arrest bail application of one Leenu Singh who submitted before the Court that the alleged forged bail order had been sent to her by her counsel, a copy of which was then sent/forwarded by her to her husband/Kuldeep Dinkar.

The matter in brief

In this case, the Delhi High Court has already ordered the registration of an FIR against the Woman's husband/applicant Mr. Kuldeep Dinkar for filing a forged and false document, namely an order dated 03.07.2020.

Kuldeep Dinkar was arrested in the instant FIR and during the investigation, it was revealed that the forged and fabricated order was sent to him by his estranged wife Leenu Singh (the petitioner) through Whatsapp, knowing fully well, that it is a forged order.

During the investigation, it was also found that since Dinkar had received the order from her estranged wife Leenu Singh, he forwarded the same to his counsel from his two mobile numbers and this fact stood verified from the RFSL Report in relation to the mobile phones of the counsel Dhruv Gupta as also Kuldeep Dinkar.

Further, the RFSL also showed a conversation between Kuldeep Dinkar and Leenu Singh.

Pursuant thereto, a notice under section 41A Cr.PC was given to Leenu Singh for joining the investigation as also notice was sought to be served in writing but the family members of Leenu Singh refused to receive any notice.

Thereafter, a petition came up before the Delhi High Court, wherein interim protection was granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the investigation.

Court's order

She argued before the Court that the forged bail was provided to her by the counsel, however, the Court noted that this stand had been taken belatedly and in the entire petition it was not stated as to when the forged and fabricated bail order was provided.

Further, the Court observed, though the petitioner claimed that a conversation was recorded on the mobile phone, however, to date, no mobile phone having a conversation had been given.

Thus, considering the nature of allegations and noting that it was required to be ascertained as to who prepared the forged bail order of the learned ASJ, it was necessary to subject the petitioner to custodial interrogation, the court denied her pre-arrest bail plea and the same was dismissed

Case title - Leenu Singh v. State GNCT of Delhi

Click Here To Download Orde

Read Order