Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
Three anticipatory bail applications arising out of FIRs concerning alleged fabrication and use of forged medical certificates in multiple court proceedings and during investigation were heard together on account of common questions of fact and law. The petitioners, Soumen Chaudhury and Arindam Chaudhuri, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 311/2019 (PS: Dwarka South) registered under Sections 468/471 IPC, and Arindam Chaudhuri separately sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 309/2021 (PS: Saket) registered under Sections 198/465/471 IPC. The allegations centred on the submission of forged medical certificates — purportedly issued in the name of a doctor who had died in 2006 — before courts and investigating agencies to obtain exemption from personal appearance and to obstruct investigations.
The complainant, Breejesh Nirula, Director of M/s. Zest Systems Private Limited, alleged that Arindam Chaudhuri had employed a systematic modus operandi of filing fabricated medical documents in diverse proceedings across multiple courts including in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In FIR No. 143/2019, a charge sheet was filed against Arindam Chaudhuri and an accomplice and the Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 418/468/471/120B IPC. The complainant contended that the applicants were running an organised racket of fabricating medical certificates and were involved in multiple cases of cheating.
The Delhi High Court heard submissions from counsel for all parties including the State, the complainant and the applicants, and the order deals with the question of entitlement to anticipatory bail in view of the gravity and multiplicity of the allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents filed before courts and investigative authorities.
Catchwords:
anticipatory bail · forged medical certificate · fabrication of documents · exemption from personal appearance · Section 438 Cr.P.C. · organised racket · multiple FIRs · Section 138 NI Act · cheating · forgery · Negotiable Instruments Act
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
Full Judgment Text
[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court - Orders
Soumen Chaudhury vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 1 February, 2024
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~56 to 58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
56
+ BAIL APPLN. 3589/2020 & CRL.M.A. 15870/2020
SOUMEN CHAUDHURY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Saxena with Mr. Brijesh
Sharma and Ms. Saguna Gupta, Advocates
versus
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State
with SI Manoj Kumar, P.S. Dwarka South.
Mr. Roshan Lal Saini and Ms. Kavita Saini,
Advocates for Comp
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools.
For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.