Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Suchinder Prakash @ Ram Prakash on 21 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI, CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
CBI vs. SUCHINDER PRAKASH AND OTHERS
Case No. : CBI/95/2019
FIR/RC No : RC40(A)/2002
U/s : Section 120B r/w
Section 419/420/468/471
IPC
Name of Branch : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
JUDGMENT
a) Unique Case ID No. : CNR No. DLCT12-000343-2019
b) The date of commission : 20.05.2002
c) Name of the Complainant : Sh. P.K. Bhasin
d) Name, parentage & address : 1) A1 Suchinder Prakash @ Ram
Prakash (absconder vide order
dated 02.08.2016)
2) A2 Mithlesh (absconder vide
order dated 19.12.2024)
3) A3 Om Prakash (abated vide
order dated 10.05.2022)
4) A4 S.C. Jha S/o Sh. Singheswar
Jha, R/o D-361, Street No.8,
Bhajan Pura, North East, Delhi.
(Mobile No.9313608329).
5) A5 Ram Kishan Tushir (abated
vide order dated 10.05.2022)
6) A6 Smt. Rajrani (abated vide
order dated 29.01.2018)
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 1 of 40
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.21
15:46:53 +0530
7) A7 B.K. Sahoo (discharged vide
order dated 12.04.2010)
e) Offences complained of : 120B r/w Sections
419/420/467/468/471 IPC
f) The plea of the accused(s) : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Judgment : Acquittal
h) Date of institution of case : 31.05.2005
i) Date of Judgment : 21.02.2026
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Accused S.C. Jha (A4) is facing trial for the commission of
offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Sections 419/420/468/471 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ” IPC“) with
allegations that on 20.05.2002, he along with co-accused persons namely
Suchinder Prakash @ Ram Prakash (absconder vide order dated
02.08.2016), Mithlesh (absconder vide order dated 19.12.2024), Om
Prakash (abated vide order dated 10.05.2022), Ram Kishan Tushir
(abated vide order dated 10.05.2022), Smt. Rajrani (abated vide order
dated 29.01.2018) and B.K. Sahoo (discharged vide order dated
12.04.2010) in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with a view to secure
the release of accused B.K. Sahoo in case RC No. 15(A)/2002, furnished
two bail bonds of Rs. 5 lacs each in the court of the complainant Sh. P.K.
Bhasin, the then Ld. ASJ, Delhi and in said bail bonds, accused Mithlesh
annexed a fake title Deed in respect of property bearing no. B-640,CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 2 of 40
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.21
15:46:59 +0530
Shastri Nagar, Delhi and a forged FDR bearing no. RHW-645646 dated
17.05.2002 issued by PNB for Rs.5 lacs and accused Suchinder Prakash
furnished a bail bond by impersonating to be one Ram Prakash by
submitting photocopy of Sale Deed in respect of property bearing no.
182, Gali No. C-9, Khajuri Khas, Delhi dated 14.05.1977 along with a
fake FDR bearing no. RHW-645650 dated 18.05.2002 for Rs. 5 lacs
issued by PNB, Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi.
Final report filed by CBI
2. The present RC was registered basis a written complaint filed by
Sh. S.C. Bhalla, Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi alleging that accused
B.K. Sahoo, CMO, Composite Hospital, BSF Academy, Tekanpur, MP
had been arrested in RC No. 15(A)/2002 on 09.03.2002. The accused
B.K. Sahoo was ordered to be released on bail by furnishing of personal
bond in the sum of Rs.5 lacs with two surety bonds of like amounts. Two
surety bail bonds were furnished in the name of accused Mrs. Mithlesh
and Mr. Ram Prakash @ Suchinder Prakash, which were accepted by the
court of Sh. P.K. Bhasin and accused was released on bail. The aforesaid
court also directed the CBI official to verify the documents. On
verification of bail bonds, the two FDRs bearing no. RHW 645646 and
RHW 645650, they were found forged and fake. In this background, on
the complaint of S.C. Bhalla, the present case was registered on
27.06.2002.
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:47:03 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 3 of 40
3. Investigation revealed that Smt. Vina Rani Sahoo w/o accused
B.K. Sahoo approached one of her relatives Sh. Gautam Acharya for
arranging the requisite sureties as ordered by the court for securing
release of her husband/accused B.K. Sahoo. Sh. Gautam Acharya in turn
requested his friend namely Adv. Anukul Pradhan, who in turn contacted
Sh. Ram Kishan Tushir, Advocate, Tis Hazari Courts. Subsequently, Sh.
Gautam Acharya, Sh. Anukul Pradhan and Smt. Vina Rani Sahoo with
Sh. Ram Kishan Tushir in his chamber at Tis Hazari Courts discussed the
matter of arranging two sureties with advocate/accused Shailesh Chandra
Jha (S.C. Jha). Accused S.C. Jha and accused Ram Kishan Tushir agreed
to arrange the sureties for fee of Rs.2.5 lacs.
4. During investigation, it was revealed that surety bond of accused
Om Prakash, who was working as Munshi of accused S.C. Jha was
produced in the Court of Sh. R.K. Gauba, Ld. ASJ on 16.05.2002 and
verification report was called from the IO for 20.05.2002. On 20.05.2002,
IO Inspector S.C. Bhalla submitted the verification report, however, Ld.
ASJ was on leave. Accused S.C. Jha inspected the report and informed
Gautam Acharya, accused Ram Kishan Tushir and Smt. Vina Rani Sahoo
that IO filed a negative report on the sureties. Subsequently, accused S.C.
Jha moved an application before Ld. ASJ and then got the case marked to
Sh. P.K. Bhasin, Ld. Special Judge.
5. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Ram Kishan
Tushir and one Sh. Surender Singh, Munshi of accused S.C. Jha, prepared
fake bail bonds and other surety papers in the name of Smt. Mithilesh and
T
PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 4 of 40 T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:47:07 +0530
Mr. Ram Prakash @ Suchinder Prakash on the direction of accused S.C.
Jha and Smt. Rajrani. It is alleged that Sh. Surender Singh, Munshi of
accused S. C. Jha called accused Mithlesh from the park and accused Om
Prakash called accused Suchinder Prakash from his house to appear in the
court as surety. Further, all the aforesaid persons assembled in the office
of accused S.C. Jha, where necessary instructions were given to accused
Mithlesh and accused Suchinder Prakash. Accused Suchinder Prakash
was instructed by accused S.C. Jha to tell his name as Ram Prakash on
being asked by the Court. Accordingly, bail bonds alongwith the FDRs
and other documents were produced by accused S.C. Jha and accused
Ram Kishan Tushir in the name of accused Mithlesh and accused Ram
Prakash @ Suchinder Prakash, which were accepted by the Court and
accused was released from custody. Directions were also issued to verify
the bail bonds / surety bonds.
6. During investigation, it was revealed that pursuant to aforesaid
conspiracy, accused Ram Kishan Tushir, accused S.C. Jha, Adv. Gautam
Acharya, Atul Pradhan, accused Suchinder Prakash and accused Om
Prakash assembled in the chamber of accused Ram Kishan Tushir, where
Smt. Vina Rani Sahoo paid an amount of Rs.2.5 lacs to accused Ram
Kishan Tushir which was shared by accused Ram Kishan Tushir, accused
S.C. Jha, Sh. Surender Singh (munshi of accused S.C. Jha), accused Om
Prakash, accused Suchinder Prakash, accused Rajrani and accused
Mithlesh.
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:47:12 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 5 of 40
7. During investigation, it was revealed that there are only two
branches of PNB in Karol Bagh one at Gurudwara Road and another at
Bank Street. The said FDRs no. RHW-645646 dated 17.05.2002 for Rs.5
lacs in the name of accused Mithlesh and FDR no. RHW645650 dated
18.05.2002 of Rs.5 lacs in the name of accused Ram Prakash @
Suchinder Prakash were not issued from these branches. Further, Sub-
Registrar IV District North East Delhi gave in writing that the property
no. B-640, Shastri Nagar, Delhi in the name of accused Mithlesh,
property no. 182, Gali NO. C-9, Khajuri Khas Delhi in the name of Ram
Prakash and property no. 3748, Mori Gate, Delhi in the name of accused
Om Prakash were not registered in their records. It was also found that
the ration card submitted in the Court was fake. Furthermore, affidavits
of accused Mithlesh, accused Ram Prakash and accused Om Prakash
were also found to be fake and improper. The bail bond of accused Om
Prakash which was presented by accused S.C. Jha earlier along with its
documents were also found forged and fake.
8. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Raj Rani @
Sethani @ Maharani used to sit in the chamber of accused S.C. Jha.
During the police custody in case FIR no. 80/2003, PS Sarojini Nagar,
accused Raj Rani @ Sethani @ Maharani disclosed that fake surety
bonds etc. in the name of accused Mithlesh and accused Ram Prakash
were prepared by Surender Singh, Munshi of accused S.C. Jha. She also
disclosed that accused Suchinder Prakash appeared as one of the sureties
of accused under fictitious name Ram Prakash. Pursuant to disclosure,
accused Suchinder Prakash was arrested and he admitted having appeared
Digitally signed
by T
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 6 of 40
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.21
15:47:50 +0530
as surety Ram Prakash. He also admitted that his photo was pasted on the
photocopy of ration card enclosed with the surety papers in the name of
Ram Prakash.
9. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Raj Rani,
accused Om Prakash, accused S.C. Jha, accused Mithlesh, accused
Suchinder alongwith Surender used to run a racket for preparing fake
surety papers including deed, FDRs etc. and they themselves used to
appear as surety under assumed names. It was also revealed that accused
Mithilesh, accused Raj Rani, accused Suchinder and Surender were
involved in number of cases in PS Sabzi Mandi, Delhi.
10. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Mithlesh could
not be traced and accordingly, she was declared absconder by the order of
Court. The specimen writing of Surender Singh, accused Suchinder
Prakash, accused S.C. Jha and accused Ram Kishan Tushir were obtained
and referred to CFSL for opinion. Whilst CFSL confirmed signature of
Suchinder Prakash as Ram Prakash on bail bond, no expert opinion could
be obtained qua Surender Singh. Therefore, no substantial evidence was
found against Surender Singh.
11. Since the alleged offences were found to be committed under
Section 193 and 199 of IPC and as per Section 340 Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C“), a complaint under
Section 340 Cr.P.C was filed on 01.10.2003 in the court of Sh. P.K.
Bhasin, Ld. Special Judge, Delhi for passing the necessary orders for
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 7 of 40
Date: 2026.02.21
15:47:56 +0530
making complaint under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Pursuant to this, the
Court conducted the enquiry and passed an order dated 13.04.2005
directing that complaint be made and forwarded to the Ld. CMM, Delhi
for the offences against B.K. Sahoo and Suchinder Prakash @ Ram
Prakash.
Course of Proceedings
12. The matter was registered on the basis of a complaint under
Section 195 of the Code. After culmination of investigation, instant
chargesheet was filed for the commission of offences punishable under
Section 120B r/w Sections 419/420/467/468/471 of IPC. The complaint
and chargesheet were clubbed together vide order dated 03.05.2006. The
complaint was filed against Suchinder Prakash and B.K. Sahoo.
However, chargesheet was filed against accused Suchinder Prakash,
accused Mithilesh, accused Om Prakash, accused S.C. Jha, accused Ram
Kishan Tushir and accused Raj Rani. Accused B.K. Sahoo was kept in
column no. 2 (erstwhile column no. 12). Cognizance was taken on
30.10.2007 and all the accused persons (including accused B.K. Sahoo)
were summoned to face trial. Thereafter, copy of the chargesheet was
supplied to them and scrutiny of documents was completed qua all the
accused persons.
13. On 10.08.2009, charge for the offences punishable under Section
120B r/w Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC was framed against the accused
T
persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Additionally,
PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:48:03 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 8 of 40
on 10.08.2009, charge for the substantive offences punishable under
Section 419/420/468 IPC was also framed against accused Suchinder
Prakash @ Ram Prakash. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. Thereafter, matter proceeded for recording of prosecution
evidence.
14. During trial, accused persons namely Suchinder Prakash and
Mithlesh were declared absconder vide order dated on 02.08.2016 and
19.12.2024 respectively. Further, proceedings have abated on 10.05.2022
against accused Om Prakash and accused Ram Kishan Tushir and on
29.01.2018 against accused Raj Rani. Further, vide order dated
12.04.2010, accused B.K. Sahoo was discharged by the order of Ld. ASJ-
01, North District, THC, Delhi.
Prosecution Evidence
15. Prosecution has examined nine witnesses in support of its case.
PW-1 Ct. Haren Singh brought the records of FIR nos. 220/2000 and
272/2000, both of PS Subzi Mandi against accused Mithlesh. The FIRs
were already exhibited. The said witness was not cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for accused persons.
16. PW-2 Sh. Ram Rakkha Choudhary deposed that he cannot tell how
many houses were there in the Shastri Nagar Colony but there was no
house with the address B-640, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. He also deposed that
there was no resident in the name of accused Mithlesh. The said witness T
PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:48:09 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 9 of 40
was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
17. PW-3 Sh. Mukesh Kumar deposed that in May, 2002, he was
posted as Reader in the Court of Sh. P.K. Bhasin, Ld. ASJ, Delhi. On
20.05.2002 after lunch, he received the bail orders from the Court of Sh.
R.K. Gauba, Ld. ASJ, Delhi as he was on leave on that day. Bail orders
were transferred to his court by the orders of Ld. District Judge, Delhi
which is Mark A. He deposed that 3-4 advocates along with two sureties
appeared in the Court and he put all the documents along with the orders
before his Ld. Presiding Officer. He identified the accused persons
present in the court. The bail bonds along with the documents were
handed over to him by accused/Adv S.C. Jha and accused/R.K. Tushir
and he put the same before his presiding officer. Bail bond of B.K.
Sahoo, furnished by surety Mithlesh dated 21.05.2002 along with
documents were marked as Mark B and he stated that the said bail bond
was accepted by the Ld. ASJ, Sh. P.K. Bhasin and Ahlmad was directed
to send the release orders. Ld. ASJ, Sh. P.K. Bhasin also wrote one letter
to the Bank for the verification of the FDRs and the same were retained
by the Court. Ld. ASJ, Sh. P.K. Bhasin while sending the documents to
the court of Sh. R.K. Gauba, the then ASJ also directed the Ahlmad of
said court and informed him about the retention of the FDRs which were
filed with the bail bonds. Ld. ASJ, Sh. P.K. Bhasin also sent a letter to IO
of the case for verification of the FDRs and directed him to file his report
T
in the court of Sh. R.K. Gauba, which is Mark C. The said witness was PRIYADARSHINI
duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons. Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:48:14 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 10 of 40
18. PW-4 Sh. Aman Kumar Sharma deposed that he was residing at A-
159, Sector-23, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP since the year 2002 and
purchased the aforesaid house from one Sh. Mahavir. He deposed that
during the sale/purchase of the said house, Mahavir had told him that his
wife/accused namely Mithlesh had been causing bad name to him
because of her behaviour and she was of bad character, for that reason, he
wanted to sell the house. He purchased the said house and executed
several documents in this regard. Later on, accused Mithlesh visited his
house 2-3 times used abusive language upon him. He identified accused
Mithlesh present in the court. Whilst her examination in chief was
deferred, the prosecution has not requested for her to be re-summoned for
recording her complete deposition. This could be because accused
Mithilesh subsequently was declared proclaimed absconder and PW4 was
not a relevant witness qua accused S.C. Jha.
19. PW-5 Sh. Sripal Sharma deposed that he knew accused Mithlesh as
she alongwith her husband namely Sh. Mahavir Singh was residing at
H.No. A-159, Sector 23, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP. He correctly
identified the accused Mithlesh present in the court. He deposed that
presently one Aman Sharma is residing at the aforesaid address as he
purchased the said property from the husband of the accused Mithlesh.
The said witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for all accused
persons.
T
20. PW-6 Sh. A. K. Bhasin deposed that the Platform bearing no. 99,
PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
Western Wing was allotted somewhere in the year 1983-84, thereafter,
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:48:18 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 11 of 40
construction on the said allotted platform was raised by him. He deposed
that he was in practice since 1985. He also deposed that immediate
adjacent to his chamber no. 99, there is chamber no. 100, Western Wing
and the door of the said chamber carries the name of Mr. D.R. Mittal. He
deposed that his statement was never recorded by the CBI. The said
witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons.
21. PW7 Sh. Manmohan Katiyal deposed that at the time of recording
his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, he was posted as Reader in the
court of Sh. R.K. Gauba, Ld. Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He
deposed that a bail bond was furnished, however, the Ld. Presiding
Officer was on leave that day. Thereafter, the bail bonds were transferred
to the then Ld. Special Judge by the order of Ld. District Judge. The bail
bonds were accepted by the said Special Judge and directions were
passed to verify the documents annexed with the bail bonds. He deposed
that either he or the Ahlmad had handed over those documents to the IO.
Further, IO filed his verification report, which was found negative. The
report along with the bail bonds and other documents presented before
the then Ld. Special Judge, who accepted the bail bonds and no action
was initiated upon the verification report. Later on, release warrant was
issued after taking the thumb impression of the surety. The said witness
was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused S.C. Jha.
22. PW8 Sh. Rajeev Gupta deposed that a notice was sent to him by
Digitally signed
by T
the CBI official to come with typewriter in CBI headquarter, New Delhi.
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:48:22 +0530
CBI officials instructed him to type the bail bond of around 10 to 12
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 12 of 40
pages at CBI Headquarter. Thereafter, he signed on the plain paper. He
deposed that he knew Sh. Anup Singh Saroha because he worked with
him for the last 20-24 years. He deposed that the bail bonds related works
used to be typed by him on his own typewriter. On being specifically
asked by Ld. PP for CBI that whether he had done bail work in the
present case on the request of accused S.C. Jha who was working as an
advocate and having his chamber near to the place where the said witness
used to do the typing work, he deposed that he did not know anyone with
the name of accused S.C. Jha and other three persons as named Surender,
Master and Om Prakash. He deposed that since he did not know accused
S.C. Jha, he cannot say whether he had typed any bail bond related work
for him. His statement was also shown to him which is mark PW8/A. As
he was a hostile witness, he was not cross-examined on behalf of accused
S.C. Jha.
23. PW9 Sh. S.C. Bhalla deposed that he had been directed to verify
the documents regarding property and bank loans by his senior. He
deposed that the two loans taken were of Rs.5,00,000/- each. The
documents were submitted regarding the present case. He deposed that he
cannot recollect the exact names of those two persons who had taken
loans due to lapse of time but as far as he knew, there were two persons
involved. He further deposed that those persons submitted fake
documents of property for advancement of loans and he submitted his
report to the concerned officer. As the witness was not deposing facts
relevant to the present matter and was a senior citizen with difficulty in
T
PRIYADARSHINI
remembering the facts of the present matter, Ld. PP sought the
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:48:28 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 13 of 40
permission of the Court to ask leading questions, which was allowed.
PW9 deposed that he cannot say right now whether he knows or knew
accused S.C. Jha or Om Prakash due to lapse of time. His attention was
also drawn towards document D-2 i.e. containing complaint dated
27.06.2002, to which he correctly identified his signature at point A.
Further, attention of PW9 was also drawn towards the contents of the
complaint, which was read over by the Ld. PP, to which he admitted that
the complaint pertained to one Mr. B.K. Sahoo who was ordered to be
released on bail in RC 15/2002 subject to furnishing of personal bail
bonds of Rs. 5 lacs with two sureties of like amount. PW9 also admitted
that in compliance of the said order, bail bond and other papers including
two FDRs as detailed in complaint D-2 was filed by sureties Ms.
Mithilesh and Ram Prakash which were accepted by the Ld. Court on
20.05.2002. PW9 further deposed as per directions, he went to deliver
letter no. 411 dated 21.05.2002 signed by the then Ld. Judge Sh. P.K.
Bhasin addressed to Manager PNB, Karol Bagh Branch, directing him to
take note of court lien on the said FDRs in the name of Smt. Mithilesh
and Sh. Ram Prakash so that the said FDRs were not encashed without
court permission. Upon visiting the two branches of the PNB in Karol
Bagh region, one at Gurudwara Road and another at Bank Street and
upon contacting the concerned Branch Managers, PW9 came to know
that the said FDRs were not issued by their branches. Accordingly, upon
making further enquiry from Sub-Registrar IV, Distt. North-East Delhi,
PW9 came to know that the respective properties i.e. one at Shastri Nagar
and another at Khajuri Khas, Delhi were not registered in the name of Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
Smt. Mithilesh and Sh. Ram Prakash respectively. On the basis of said
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.21
15:48:32 +0530CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 14 of 40
enquiry, he filed a separate complaint which was D-2/Ex.PW-9/A.
Further, attention of PW9 was drawn towards document D-23 i.e.
certified copy of judicial records pertaining to case CBI vs. B.K. Sahoo in
RC 15(A)/2202/CBI/ACB/DLI and further attention of the witness was
drawn to Page-14 and read out loud to the him, PW9 admitted that the
said Verification Report at Page-14 was filed by him with regard to
genuineness of the documents submitted by surety Om Prakash. He also
identified his signatures at point A submitted that the property documents
i.e. Sale deed was not found to be registered in the name of Om Prakash
as per letter dated 18.05.2002 which was attached with the said
verification report available at Page-15/Ex.PW-9/B(colly). Further,
attention of the witness was drawn towards document D-23 i.e. certified
copy of judicial records pertaining to case CBI vs. B.K. Sahoo in RC
15(A)/2202/CBI/ACB/DLI and further attention of the witness was
drawn to Page-25 and read out loud to him, PW9 admitted that the same
was the compliance report filed by him in the court of Ld. Special Judge
with regard to directions to deliver letter number 411 dated 21.05.2002
addressed to Manager, PNB, Karol Bagh Branch. He also identified his
signatures at Point A and deposed that through this report, he had
informed the court that the said FDRs of Rs. 5 lacs each were not issued
by any of the Bank branches situated in Karol Bagh. He also identified
his signature on document D-23/Ex.PW-9/C. The document i.e. D-23
(except Page No. 14,15 and 25) also collectively exhibited as
Ex.PW-9/D(colly). On being specifically asked by Ld. PP for the CBI
about the role of accused S.C. Jha in the case, the witness deposed that he
does not remember, however, whatever he had found in his enquiry, heT
PRIYADARSHINI
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 15 of 40
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:48:37 +0530
had mentioned the same in his complaint i.e. D-2. PW9 was duly cross-
examined by Ld. counsel for accused S.C. Jha. Thereafter, PE was closed
on 30.01.2026.
Statement of Accused
24. Statement of accused S.C. Jha under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was
recorded on 03.02.2026. In his statement, accused stated that he has been
falsely implicated in the present case due to the fight between him and IO
S.C. Bhalla who wanted some bribery to which he denied, which led to
him being falsely dragged in this case. He also denied that he was part of
any conspiracy to file forged bail bonds. He chose to not lead DE.
Accordingly, DE was closed on 03.02.2026.
Final Arguments
25. Thereafter, final arguments in the matter were heard on behalf of
both the sides on various dates of hearing. I have heard Ld. PP for the
CBI/ Prosecution, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also carefully
gone through the case file including the judgments relied upon.
Legal provisions
26. The cardinal principle of criminal law cannot be forgotten that the
prosecution has to prove its case against accused beyond all reasonable
T
PRIYADARSHINI
doubts. The standard of proof is not the preponderance of probabilities
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 16 of 40 15:48:42 +0530
but proof beyond reasonable doubt. Initial burden of proof as regards
prosecution in criminal trial is upon the prosecution and it never shifts
upon the accused. It is well settled legal proposition that any benefit of
doubt goes in favor of the accused.
27. In the present case, charge for the commission of offences
punishable under Section 120B r/w Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC was
framed against accused S.C. Jha and it is necessary to briefly discuss the
existing provisions of law relating to the offences in question.
28. It is pertinent to note that accused S.C. Jha has not been charged
with any substantive offence under IPC and has been charged with
Section 120B which pertains to criminal conspiracy. Section 120A of IPC
defines criminal conspiracy and Section 120B of IPC provides for
punishment of criminal conspiracy.
“120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy- When two or more per-
sons agree to do, or cause to be done,
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement
is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an
offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act be-
sides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agree-
ment in pursuance thereof.
Explanation. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate
object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.”
T
PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:48:47 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 17 of 40
29. As regards the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120A
IPC, offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more
persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by
illegal means. Offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the
general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to
commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention,
which is punishable under the aforesaid section. Not only the intention
but there has to be an agreement to carry out the object of intention,
which is an offence. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy
when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever,
horrendous it may be, that offence is committed. Conspiracy is hatched in
private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by
direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its
objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the
accused.
30. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy
then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission,
and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out
their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who
joins in the agreement. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not
necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed, it may
further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy. What part
each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to T
PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:48:51 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 18 of 40
when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.
31. A conspiracy, thus, is a continuing offence and continues to subsist
and is committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series
of acts. As long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence
till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A
crime is committed as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing
of the moment. This means that everything said, written or done by any
of the conspirator in execution or any part of it is deemed to have been
said, done and written by each of them.
32. In V. R. Nedunchezhian vs. State (2000 CrLJ 976) it was observed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras that:
“It is true that the conspiracy may be a chain; where each party
performs even without the knowledge of the other, a role that aids
or abets succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal
objectives of the conspiracy.”
33. In the case of Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India and others (JT
1993 (3) SC 203) it has been observed that it is not necessary that each
conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at
every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of
the conspiracy. Applying the aforesaid legal position regarding criminal
conspiracy punishable under Section 120B Cr.P.C, the findings of the
Court in the present RC are discussed below.
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 19 of 40 Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:48:57 +0530
Findings
34. The two primary issues in the present case as alleged by the Ld.
Counsel for accused S.C. Jha are as follows and they are dealt with
separately:
a) Whether the directions issued by the Ld. Special Judge to
CBI for registration of case prior to filing a complaint under
Section 195 of the Code is fallacious and the said irregularity has
vitiated the proceedings?
b) Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable
doubt that accused S.C. Jha was a co-conspirator in furnishing fake
and forged surety bonds in favour of B.K. Sahoo, thereby, making
him liable under Section 120B of IPC?
Whether the directions issued by the Ld. Special Judge to CBI for
registration of case prior to filing a complaint under Section 195 of the
Code is fallacious and the said irregularity has vitiated the proceedings?
35. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for accused S.C. Jha is twofold,
firstly, that the Ld. Special Judge could not have issued directions to CBI
for registration and investigation of case and secondly, that the
proceedings stand vitiated as the procedure laid down in Section 340
Cr.P.C has not been complied with. The Ld. Counsel for accused S.C. Jha
has argued that Ld. Special Judge could not have directed CBI to register
a case as only Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Courts can Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.21
15:49:02 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 20 of 40
direct CBI to register a case. The Ld. Counsel for accused S.C. Jha has
also argued that the correct procedure of law has not been followed as the
Ld. Special Judge ought to have filed a complaint under Section 195(b)
(ii) of Cr.P.C which provides that no court shall take cognizance of any
offence described in Section 463 of IPC or is punishable under Sections
471, 475 or 476 IPC, when such offence is alleged to have been
committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in any Court except on a complaint in writing of that Court or
by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorize in writing. The
said bar also extends to offence of criminal conspiracy to commit the
aforesaid offences. It is argued that the said complaint has to be dealt
with by the jurisdictional magistrate as per procedure prescribed under
Section 340 of Cr.P.C. It is argued that this application ought to have
been filed before registration of the present RC.
36. On the first limb of the argument that Ld. Special Judge could not
have issued directions to CBI for registration of case, it is pertinent to
note that vide order dated 07.06.2002, the Ld. Special Judge had directed
the CBI to register a case. In Central Bureau of Investigation vs. R.K.
Yadav (Judgment dated 23.12.2015 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in W.P. Crl. 903/2013), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has answered
the question whether the Special Judge, CBI, PC Act is empowered to
direct the CBI to register an FIR and investigate into a complaint filed
before him? The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed that in CBI
vs. State of Rajasthan (2001 3 SCC 333), it was held that a Special Judge,
T
PRIYADARSHINI
CBI cannot direct the CBI to register an FIR and investigate into the Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:49:06 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 21 of 40
offence. It was observed that “Only the High Courts and the Supreme
Court can so direct the CBI in exceptional circumstances”. The Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in R.K. Yadav case (supra) has observed:
“No police personnel, whether from CBI or any other department,
who does not fall within the meaning of officer-in-charge of a
police station can be directed to investigate any case by the Special
Judge, CBI. In the present case, it is observed that the Special
Judge, CBI exceeded its jurisdiction whilst directing the CBI to
investigate into the alleged offence. The CBI is not an investigating
agency of the Court presided over by the Special Judge under
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The status of the CBI cannot
be de-escalated to that of an “officer-in-charge of the police
station” under Section 156(3) of the Code.”
37. From the legal position above, it is clear that the registration of the
present RC is not proper in law. However, neither the prosecution nor the
accused has challenged the said order and therefore, the order has
attained finality. The said irregularity does not come within the purview
of Section 461 of Cr.P.C. No failure of justice has been shown by the
accused. To my mind, the irregularity in the registration does not vitiate
the proceedings as illegality in ordering investigation does not
automatically nullify trial unless prejudice is shown and no prejudice has
been shown by the accused S.C. Jha. Therefore, the argument re:
jurisdictional excess by the Ld. Special Judge raised by the accused at
this stage fails.
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.21
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 22 of 40 15:49:11 +0530
38. On the second limb of argument re: illegality of procedure, the
present RC has been registered pursuant to a written complaint dated
27.06.2002 filed by Inspector S.C. Bhalla, CBI, ACB, Delhi. In the said
complaint, Inspector S.C. Bhalla has averred that accused persons have
entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Hon’ble Court by
submitting fake / forged documents. The said complaint has been filed
pursuant to order dated 07.06.2002 wherein the Ld. Special Judge, on
receiving the report that the property documents and FDRs were
forged/fabricated, has observed:
“A fraud has been played upon the Court by getting the accused
released on the basis of fake sureties. This involves serious
offences including those punishable u/s 419, 420, 466, 467, 468
and 471 IPC. The matter would need thorough probe and
investigation. CBI may register a case and do the needful in
accordance with law.”
39. After registration of the present RC, an application under Section
340 read with Section 195 of Cr.P.C was filed in the Hon’ble Court of
Sh. P.K. Bhasin, Special Judge, CBI on 01.10.2003 by Sh. C.K. Sharma,
Inspector, CBI. The Ld. Special Judge vide order dated 13.04.2005
adjudicated the aforesaid application and directed that complaint be made
and forwarded to the Ld. CMM, Delhi for the offences against B.K.
Sahoo and Suchinder Prakash @ Ram Prakash.
T
PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:49:15 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 23 of 40
40. There were two separate files in the present matter, one pertaining
to the complaint filed under Section 195 Cr.P.C and the other is the
chargesheet filed in the present RC. Vide order dated 03.05.2006, the Ld.
Predecessor Judge has observed the following:
“The matter was registered on the basis of a complaint under
Section 195 Cr.P.C, which was made by the Special Judge, CBI.
The said complaint and the chargesheet that has been filed by the
CBI are today clubbed together.”
41. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that registration of case
could not have preceded the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is
indeed trite in law that a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C has to be
filed before the jurisdictional magistrate. Court cannot assume
cognizance without such a complaint (Re: C. Muniappan vs. State of
Tamil Nadu AIR 2010 SC 3718). In M.S. Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana
(1999 AIR SCW 4255) it was held that provisions of Section 195 of
Cr.P.C are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of
any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in
writing as required under that section. It is also established in law that as
per procedure prescribed under Section 340 Cr.P.C, the Court is required
to make enquiry and could not have straightaway proceeded to issue
notices to persons against whom application was made. It has been held
that issuing notices straightaway after receiving the application was an
Digitally signed
by T
irregularity and cannot stand judicial scrutiny (Re: Krishnappa vs.
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:49:20 +0530
Thoppaiah Shetty 1997 (2) Crimes 360).
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 24 of 40
42. On the issue whether non-compliance of procedure as envisaged
under Section 195 of the Code is an incurable defect. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2010 SC 3718) has
held that non-compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C would vitiate the
prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court cannot assume
the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such
a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without
jurisdiction. In State of Punjab vs. Raj Singh (AIR 1998 SC 768), the
following was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court –
“We are unable to sustain the impugned order of the High Court
quashing the FIR lodged against the respondents alleging
commission of offences under Section 419, 420, 467 and 468 IPC
by them in course of proceeding of a civil suit, on the ground that
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C prohibited entertainment of and
investigation into the same by the police. From a plain reading of
Section 195 Cr.P.C, it is manifest that it comes into operation at the
stage when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offense
under section 190(1) Cr.P.C.; and it has nothing to do with the
statutory power of the police to investigate into an FIR which
discloses a cognizable offense in accordance with Chapter XII of
the Code even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in,
or in relation to, any proceeding in court. In other words, the
statutory power of the police to investigate under the Code is not in
any way controlled or circumscribed by Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is of
course true that upon the chargesheet, if any, filed on completion of
the investigation into such an offense, the court would not be T
PRIYADARSHINIDigitally signed
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 25 of 40 by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:49:25 +0530
competent to take cognizance thereof in view of the embargo of
section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C, but nothing therein deters the court from
filing a complaint for the offense on the basis of the FIR (filed by
the aggrieved private party) and the materials collected during
investigation, provided it forms the requisite opinion and follows
the procedure laid down in Section 340 Cr.P.C.”
43. It is pertinent to note that the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C
was filed in the Hon’ble Court of Sh. P.K. Bhasin, Special Judge, CBI on
01.10.2003 by Sh. C.K. Sharma, Inspector, CBI. The Ld. Special Judge
vide order dated 13.04.2005 adjudicated the aforesaid application and
directed that complaint be made and forwarded to the Ld. CMM, Delhi
for the offences against B.K. Sahoo and Suchinder Prakash @ Ram
Prakash. Prior to passing the order dated 13.04.2005, notice of the
application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C was issued to the accused
persons and their replies were duly considered.
44. In Devendra Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi and another) (2025
INSC 1009), the following observations were made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India with respect to ambit of Section 195 Cr.P.C-
“59. We may summarize our final conclusion as under:
(i) Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. bars the court from taking
cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to
188 respectively of the I.P.C., unless there is a written
complaint by the public servant concerned or his
administrative superior, for voluntarily obstructing the
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 26 of 40
public servant from discharge of his public functions.
Without a complaint from the said persons, the court would
lack competence to take cognizance in certain types of
offences enumerated therein. If in truth and substance, an
offence falls in the category of Section 195(1)(a)(i), it is not
open to the court to undertake the exercise of splitting them
up and proceeding further against the accused for the other
distinct offences disclosed in the same set of facts. However,
it also cannot be laid down as a straitjacket formula that the
Court, under all circumstances, cannot undertake the
exercise of splitting up. It would depend upon the facts of
each case, the nature of allegations and the materials on
record.
(ii) Severance of distinct offences is not permissible when it
would effectively circumvent the protection afforded by
Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C., which requires a
complaint by a public servant for certain offences against
public justice. This means that if the core of the offence falls
under the purview of Section 195(1)(a)(i), it cannot be
prosecuted by simply filing a general complaint for a
different, but related, offence. The focus should be on
whether the facts, in substance, constitute an offence
requiring a public servant’s complaint.
(iii) In the aforesaid context, the courts must apply twin tests. T
PRIYADARSHINI
First, the courts must ascertain having regard to the nature of Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:49:57 +0530
the allegations made in the complaint/FIR and other
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 27 of 40
materials on record whether the other distinct offences not
covered by Section 195(1)(a)(i) have been invoked only with
a view to evade the mandatory bar of Section 195 of the
I.P.C. and secondly, whether the facts primarily and
essentially disclose an offence for which a complaint of the
court or a public servant is required.
(iv) Where an accused is alleged to have committed some
offences which are separate and distinct from those
contained in Section 195, Section 195 will affect only the
offences mentioned therein. However, the courts should
ascertain whether such offences form an integral part and are
so intrinsically connected so as to amount to offences
committed as a part of the same transaction, in which case
the other offences also would fall within the ambit of Section
195 of the Cr.P.C. This would all depend on the facts of each
case.
(v) Sections 195(1)(b)(i)(ii) & (iii) and 340 of the Cr.P.C.
respectively do not control or circumscribe the power of the
police to investigate, under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Once investigation is completed then the embargo in Section
195 would come into play and the Court would not be
competent to take cognizance. However, that Court could
then file a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR
and the material collected during investigation, provided the
procedure laid down in Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is
T
followed.” PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 28 of 40 Date: 2026.02.21
15:50:04 +0530
45. It is clear from the file that cognizance of the offences was taken
after consideration of the complaint of the Ld. Special Judge under
Section 195 Cr.P.C as well as the chargesheet with the accompanying
documents. Vide order dated 03.05.2006, the Ld. Predecessor Judge has
clubbed the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C and the chargesheet filed
by the CBI. Offences such as forgery as is alleged in the complaint under
Section 195 Cr.P.C filed by the Ld. Special Judge cannot be established
beyond reasonable doubt without investigation by an impartial agency as
establishing the offence of forgery requires forensic analysis of the
disputed documents. Further, as can be seen from the conclusion in the
chargesheet that role of other accused persons was also investigated in
the present RC which could not have been done by the Ld. Special Judge
in his complaint. For determining the true and complete picture with
respect to the furnishing of fake and forged surety bonds, investigation
was essential, hence, registration of case and consequent investigation
was a pre-requisite. The procedure cannot be faulted as it has been laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a clear manner that power of the
police to investigate is not circumscribed by Sections 195 and Section
340 of Cr.P.C. The embargo is on cognizance and the cognizance in the
present matter has been taken only after complaint under Section 195 of
Cr.P.C was filed by the Ld. Special Judge with the Ld. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, New Delhi. There is no irregularity in the procedure adopted
in the present case and hence, the argument that the proceedings stand
vitiated is rejected.
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.21
15:50:08 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 29 of 40
Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that
accused S.C. Jha was a co-conspirator in furnishing fake and forged
surety bonds in favour of B.K. Sahoo, thereby, making him liable under
Section 120B of IPC?
46. Vide charge dated 10.08.2009, the accused S.C. Jha alongwith
other accused persons has been charged under Section 120B read with
Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC for commission of criminal conspiracy
with a view to secure release of accused B.K. Sahoo (discharged vide
order dated 12.04.2010) in RC No. 15(A)/2002 by furnishing two bail
bonds of Rs.5 lacs each in the court of Sh. P.K. Bhasin, the then Ld. ASJ,
Delhi, out of which, one was furnished by accused Mithlesh with a fake
title deed in respect of property bearing number B-640, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi and a forged FDR bearing number RHW-645646 dated 17.05.2002
issued by PNB for Rs.5 lacs and the other surety was furnished by
accused Suchinder Prakash impersonating as Ram Prakash with a
photocopy of sale deed in respect of Property bearing number 182, Gali
No. C9, Khajuri Khas, Delhi dated 14.05.1977 alongwith a fake FDR
bearing number RHW-645650 dated 18.05.2002 issued by PNB for Rs.5
lacs. Accused S.C. Jha has not been charged with any substantive IPC
offence.
T
PRIYADARSHINI
47. The factum of the documents accompanying the surety bonds being Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:50:13 +0530
forged has not been denied by accused S.C. Jha. The defence of accused
S.C. Jha is that the initial bail bond / surety bond given by accused Om
Prakash on behalf of accused B.K. Sahoo which was rejected on account
of inadequate sureties was filed by him as an advocate. It is argued that
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 30 of 40
the subsequent bail bonds which are the impugned surety bonds given by
accused Mithilesh and accused Suchinder Prakash in favour of B.K.
Sahoo which were filed with forged surety documents were not filed by
him and he was not part of any conspiracy to cheat the Court by filing
fake sureties with forged / fake documents.
48. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused
S.C. Jha has stated that he had initially filed a surety bond of Mr. Om
Prakash for B.K. Sahoo and as the said surety document was found to be
for a value lesser than Rs.5 lacs, the bail bond was not accepted. He has
further stated that he has no information with respect to subsequent two
bail bonds on which the surety documents were found to be forged and
the present case was registered. He has also submitted that the subsequent
two bail bonds were furnished by another laywer who has not been
arraigned as an accused. He has also denied that accused Mithlesh or
accused R.K. Tushir were his associates.
49. On careful perusal of the file along with depositions of the
prosecution witnesses, it appears that there is no sufficient material to
convict the accused S.C. Jha for the offence of criminal conspiracy for
the following reasons:
a) Firstly, the prosecution has not been able to establish that
accused S.C. Jha presented the bail bonds filed by accused
Mithlesh and accused Suchinder Prakash @ Ram Prakash for the
release of B.K. Sahoo. Even in the complaint under Section 195 of
Cr.P.C, it has been averred by the Ld. Special Judge that on T
PRIYADARSHINIDigitally signed
by T
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 31 of 40 PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:50:18 +0530
20.05.2002, accused Mithilesh and accused Suchinder Prakash @
Ram Prakash appeared along with one advocate having his
chamber at Chamber No. 100, Western Wing, Tis Hazari, Delhi and
presented surety bonds on behalf of B.K. Sahoo. There is no
mention of role of accused S.C. Jha.
b) Secondly, whilst it is admitted by the accused that the initial
surety bond of Mr. Om Prakash in favour of B.K. Sahoo was filed
by S.C. Jha as an advocate, the said surety bond is not one of the
bonds which were filed with forged / fake documents and hence, do
not incriminate accused S.C. Jha.
c) Thirdly, accused Suchinder Prakash @ Ram Prakash, in his
reply filed to the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C, had stated
that he was asked to file bail bond by accused Raj Rani, accused
Om Prakash and accused R. K. Tushir. No averments have been
made by him against accused S.C. Jha. In fact, he has categorically
stated that he does not know any other advocate or munshi who are
dealing in fake sureties.
d) Fourthly, it is averred by the prosecution in the chargesheet
that Ms. Vina Rani Sahoo, wife of B. K. Sahoo, had approached
one of her relatives Mr. Gautam Acharya and his friend Mr. Anukul
Padhan for help who in turn contacted accused Ram Kishan Tushir,
It is also averred that Mr. Gautam Acharya, Mr. Anukul Pradhan
and Ms. Vina Rani Sahoo met accused Ram Kishan Tushir in his
chamber at Tis Hazari who discussed the matter of arranging T
PRIYADARSHINI
sureties with accused S.C. Jha. The best witnesses to prove the
Digitally signed by
prosecution case would have been Ms. Vina Rani Sahoo, Mr. T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:50:23 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 32 of 40
Gautam Acharya and Mr. Anukul Pradhan. Ms. Vina Rani Sahoo,
Mr. Gautam Acharya and Mr. Anukul Pradhan were mentioned in
the list of updated witnesses filed by the IO on 30.05.2025. The
Prosecution could not procure the presence of PW Vina Rani
Sahoo, Gautam Acharya and Mr. Anukul Pradhan. PW Gautam
Acharya and Pw Anukul Pradhan were dropped from the list of
witnesses and their names were struck off on 06.02.2025. PW Vina
Rani Sahoo has been dropped from the list of witnesses on
23.12.2025. The entire basis of the prosecution’s case was
dependent on their testimonies as they were the witnesses who
could have testified the role played by accused S.C.Jha in
arranging fake sureties. The absence of said witnesses has
irreparably prejudiced the prosecution’s case.
e) Fifthly, the depositions of PW4, PW5 and PW6 are
irrelevant and the Ld. PP for CBI has also not relied upon the said
statements recorded in court while addressing arguments with
respect to accused S.C. Jha. Similarly, the deposition of PW2 Mr.
Ram Rakhha Choudhary is irrelevant as he has deposed with
respect to the title documents pertaining to property bearing
number B-640, Shastri Nagar, Delhi as fake and the factum of the
title documents being forged has already been admitted by the
accused S.C. Jha.
f) Sixthly, PW-3 Mukesh Kumar, Reader in the court of Sh.
P.K. Bhasin, Ld. ASJ, Delhi at the relevant time has deposed in his
examination in chief that on 25.05.2002, three to four advocates Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
alongwith the two sureties appeared in the court and furnished
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.21
15:50:28 +0530CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 33 of 40
surety bonds before the abovesaid Ld. Judge. He has also identified
the accused S.C. Jha as one of the advocates who was present in
the court on the said day. He has stated that the bail bonds
alongwith documents were handed over by accused S.C. Jha and
accused R.K. Tushir. In his cross-examination, PW-3 has admitted
that the impugned bail bonds i.e. Ex.PW-3/DB and Ex.PW-3/DC
do not bear the name of accused S.C. Jha. The name of one
advocate, Mr. A.K. Singh is stated to have been mentioned as the
advocate who has presented the bail bonds. Moreover, from the
cross-examination of PW3, it appears that PW3 could not recollect
whether names of accused advocates was mentioned by him to the
IO while recording his statement. Also even if admitted that
accused S.C. Jha appeared in the concerned court, it cannot be said
to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused S.C. Jha
was a co-conspirator.
g) Seventhly, PW-7 Manmohan Katiyal (Reader of the Court of
Mr. R.K. Gauba, Ld. Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi) has deposed
that he cannot recall the name of the advocate who represented
accused B.K. Sahoo while submitting surety bonds in pursuance of
the directions of Ld. Special Judge. Even on accused S.C. Jha
being pointed out in the court, PW-7 could not identify him as the
counsel who had furnished the bail bond.
h) Eighthly, PW8 Rajeev Gupta, the person who purportedly
typed the bail bond as per prosecution version, has clearly deposed
that he does not know anyone by the name of accused S.C. Jha. T
PRIYADARSHINIEven when the Ld. PP for CBI was granted permission to ask
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:50:33 +0530CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 34 of 40
leading questions, PW-8 categorically deposed that he does not
know accused S.C. Jha and he has never worked for/with him. On
account of his said deposition, Ld. PP for CBI declared the witness
as hostile and cross-examined the said witness. PW-8 has denied
major portion of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C
wherein he stated that he used to type the bail bonds on the
instructions of accused S.C. Jha.
i) Ninthly, PW-6 Sh. A. K. Bhasin deposed that the Platform
bearing no. 99, Western Wing was allotted somewhere in the year
1983-84, thereafter, construction on the said allotted platform was
raised by him. He deposed that he was in practice since 1985. He
also deposed that adjacent to his chamber no. 99, there is chamber
no. 100, Western Wing and the door of the said chamber carries the
name of Mr. D.R. Mittal. Considering that the address of the
lawyer who presented the impugned bail bonds has been mentioned
as Chamber No. 100, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, the CBI
ought to have investigated the lawyer whose name appears on the
impugned bail bonds. The said lawyer would have known that the
sureties are presenting fake documents and could be said to be a
co-conspirator. The CBI, for reasons best known to it, has not
investigated the said aspect nor clarified why the said advocate was
not traced and joined in the investigation. Similarly, on 07.06.2002
(when the Ld. Special Judge directed for registration of case with T
PRIYADARSHINICBI), one advocate Ms. Anita Saroha appeared on behalf of Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
accused Dr. B.K. Sahoo. The said advocate has also not been 15:50:38 +0530joined in the investigation.
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 35 of 40
j) Tenthly, whilst the prosecution has averred in the
chargesheet that the accused persons ran a racket for preparing fake
sureties, no evidence has been placed on record in this regard.
Further, it is averred in the chargesheet that accused Rajrani in FIR
No. 80/2023, disclosed role of accused S.C. Jha in preparing fake
bonds in other matters in Tis Hazari District Courts. However, the
record of the said FIR has not been summoned by the prosecution,
hence, the averments remain unsupported/uncorroborated with
evidence.
k) Finally, the final death knell to the prosecution’s case is the
deposition of PW9. Whilst PW9, on being asked leading questions,
has deposed that the impugned surety bonds filed were
accompanied with fake and forged documents, he has clearly stated
that he does not remember the role played by accused S.C. Jha and
the reason why he has been arraigned as an accused.
50. On the aspect of criminal conspiracy, the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Vinay Jain vs State and another (Decision dated 13.02.2015 in
Crl. M.C.4792/2014) has observed that:
“21. On perusal of Section 120-A of IPC, it is manifestly clear that
for imputing a person as a ‘conspirator’ there has to be existence of
‘an agreement’ between two more persons either to do ‘an illegal
act’ or to do a ‘legal act through illegal means’. Since, legislature
has not provided any deeming provision to draw presumption in
favour of existence of conspiracy, the prosecution cannot be T
PRIYADARSHINIabsolved of the responsibility of bringing sufficient circumstances Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:50:43 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 36 of 40
pointing towards existence of an agreement amongst the
conspirators do to an ‘illegal act’ or ‘a legal act through illegal
means’. Apart from commission of ‘act’, prosecution is also vested
with a responsibility to bring evidence on record of the crime
committed in pursuance of ‘an agreement’ made between the
accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. It is
well settled proposition of law that an offence of conspiracy cannot
be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion, surmises or
inferences which are not supported by cogent or acceptable
evidence.”
51. There is no evidence on record in support of the averment of the
prosecution that accused S.C. Jha presented the surety bonds of accused
Mithilesh and accused Suchinder Prakash @ Ram Prakash in the court of
Sh. P.K. Bhasin, Ld. Special Judge, Delhi. There is also no evidence on
record in support of the averment that accused S.C. Jha moved an
application before the Ld. District and Sessions Judge and got the bail
applications marked to the Court of Sh. P.K. Bhasin as the Ld. Judge R.K.
Gauba was on leave. Nothing incriminating has come against accused
S.C. Jha in the FSL Reports as the said Report has only confirmed the
signature of accused Suchinder Prakash as that of Ram Prakash in the
surety bond.
52. In Ram Narain Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR T
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.21
2003 SC 2748), it was observed that for the offence of conspiracy some
15:50:48 +0530kind of physical manifestation of an agreement is required to be
established.
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 37 of 40
53. It is a well settled principle of law that to prove the charge of
conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120B IPC, it is necessary to
establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an
unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to
establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in
absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the
conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not
safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120B of IPC. A
few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be
held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of
crime of criminal conspiracy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parveen vs.
State of Haryana [2022 (1) RCR 483] has observed that “it is not safe to
hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120B IPC. in absence of
any evidence to show a meeting of minds between the conspirators for
the intended object of committing an illegal act”.
54. Perusal of testimonies of prosecution witnesses in the present case
would reveal that there is no evidence on record which proves the fact
that accused S.C. Jha has played any role in the furnishing of the
impugned surety bonds before the Court of Ld. Special Judge and
commission of said illegal act. The prosecution has failed to prove the
charge of criminal conspiracy against accused S.C. Jha beyond
T
PRIYADARSHINI
reasonable doubt. An offence of criminal conspiracy cannot be deemed to Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
have been established on the mere suspicion or inference which are not Date: 2026.02.21
15:50:52 +0530
supported by any cogent evidence as to whether there was a prior meeting
of mind or an agreement to do an illegal act. In view of the above, I hold
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 38 of 40
that the aspect of criminal conspiracy has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt for which benefit is being given to the accused S.C. Jha.
Leave apart agreement to carry out an illegal act, even intention to
commit the crime has not been successfully attributed to accused S.C.
Jha. From the circumstances and conduct of the accused, existence of
conspiracy qua accused S.C. Jha cannot be inferred.
55. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a plethora of cases including
Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973 2 SCC 808), it is one of
the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in mind in our system
of administration of criminal justice is that a person arraigned as an
accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by
the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be guilty
of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt
of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of the
burden, the Court cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused.
Further, if two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused has to be accepted.
56. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is quite clear that the basic
premise on which the CBI was prosecuting the instant case stands on a
shaky footing, due to which it has fallen like a pack of cards. The accused
being an advocate, the CBI ought to have investigated thoroughly and
T
collected more material before charging the accused of criminal offences. PRIYADARSHINI
The purported money trail has not been established as neither ocular nor
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.02.21
15:50:57 +0530
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 39 of 40
documentary evidence re: said payment by wife of accused B.K. Sahoo
has been established. No investigation has been done with respect to the
advocate whose name is mentioned in the impugned bail bonds. None of
the prosecution witnesses have deposed anything against accused S.C.
Jha to establish his role as a co-conspirator.
57. Considering the aforesaid discussion, given facts and
circumstances, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, this
court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
offences for which charges were framed against accused S.C. Jha. Hence,
accused S.C. Jha is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section
120B read with Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC thereof i.e. the offences
for which he was charged with.
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
Announced in the open Court PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.02.21
on 21st day of February, 2026 15:51:08 +0530
(T. Priyadarshini)
CJM/RADC/New Delhi
21.02.2026
CBI/ 95/2019 CBI vs. Suchinder Prakash & Ors Page No. 40 of 40
