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 +0530 CBI/ 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, he T 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 PRIYADARSHINI Digitally 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 PRIYADARSHINI Digitally 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 +0530 CBI/ 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 PRIYADARSHINI Even when the Ld. PP for CBI was granted permission to ask Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.02.21 15:50:33 +0530 CBI/ 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 PRIYADARSHINI CBI), 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 +0530 joined 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 PRIYADARSHINI absolved 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:
2026.02.212003 SC 2748), it was observed that for the offence of conspiracy some 15:50:48 +0530 kind 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