Promod Kumar Surolia v. State of Maharashtra
In the High Court of Bombay
Cr. A. B.A. 744/2014
Before Justice Sadhana S. Jadhav
Decided on February 04, 2016

Relevancy of the case: Anticipatory bail in a case involving forging of digital signatures and fabrication of documents

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66C, 66D)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 438)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• These are applications seeking grant of pre-arrest bail. The complainant and his wife were directors of NRK Overseas (India) Pvt. Ltd., and hold 100% shares of the company. In 2005-06, he had appointed the applicant, who was a practising Chartered Accountant, as his financial advisor. The complainant had to travel frequently for the business of the company.
• It was alleged that in September 2009, the applicant forged the digital signature of the complainant and his wife, and inducted two persons within the company without the complainant’s consent. The Complainant filed a petition under Section 284 of the Companies Act for removal of the newly inducted members. However, it was discovered that the forged signatures were used to create forged resignation letters of the complainant and his wife, and uploaded on the Registrar of Companies website. A transfer of shares was also shown using the forged signatures.
• Thereafter, crime no. 18 of 2013 was reported at Sakinaka Police Station. Several other documents like forged rubber stamps, seals, head-letters, signed blank papers etc. were found on the company premises. The police officer informed the complainant that a criminal matter was not made out here. The complainant, instead of approaching a Magistrate, approached the Company Law Board seeking an injunction against the applicant. The matter is pending before the Company Law Board.
• The investigating agencies involved seek custodial interrogation of the accused for further investigation of the origins of the forged documents.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The applicant’s counsel contended that given the facts of the case, custodial interrogation may amount to punitive detention and that stringent conditions may be imposed upon the applicant, which may be enlarged on bail.

Opinion of the Bench

• Custodial interrogation in the facts of the present case would not be justified. Since the matter is pending before the Company Law Board, any observation by this Court would have an impact on the decision of the Company Law Board. Given the present circumstances, it would not be appropriate to pre-determine the issues. The applicant cannot be deprived of his liberty in such circumstances. He deserves to be granted pre-arrest bail in the interest of justice.

Final Decision

• The application was allowed.
• The applicant was granted pre-bail arrest under certain conditions.

This case summary has been prepared by Shrawani Mohani, an undergraduate student at ILS Law College, Pune, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2021.