The Bombay High Court, presided by Justice Manish Pitale, denied anticipatory bail to the applicant, who was implicated in a conspiracy involving a fatal car accident. The court found prima facie evidence supporting charges under Section 467 IPC (forgery of valuable security) along with other offenses, including conspiracy and corruption. The applicant was accused of tampering with blood samples to shield his son, involved in the car crash, from criminal liability. The court highlighted the need for custodial interrogation given the severity of the allegations and the applicant's absconding status.

1. Case Introduction:

The anticipatory bail application stems from an FIR (No. 0306/2024) related to a fatal accident caused by a speeding Porsche driven by a minor under the influence of alcohol. The applicant’s son was in the car, and the applicant is accused of conspiring to tamper with evidence to protect his son.

2. Factual Background:

The FIR was registered after a Porsche collided with a motorcycle, killing its riders. Allegations arose that the applicant’s minor son was involved and the applicant participated in tampering with evidence by bribing hospital staff to swap blood samples.

3. Charges and Allegations:

The applicant faces charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, including Sections 304, 201, 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 467 IPC (forgery of valuable security).

4. Prosecution’s Argument:

The prosecution alleged that the applicant conspired with doctors to replace his son’s blood sample with that of another, misleading forensic results and attempting to evade accountability. This tampering formed the core of the forgery charge.

5. Applicant's Defense:

The defense argued that at worst, the applicant could only be charged under Section 201 (destruction of evidence), a bailable offense. They contended that the blood sample does not qualify as a "document" under Section 467 IPC.

6. Court’s Observations:

The court noted prima facie evidence that the applicant’s actions amounted to forgery of a valuable security. The blood sample label was deemed critical to the conspiracy and deception involved in the case.

7. Key Legal Points Discussed:

The court deliberated on Sections 464 and 467 IPC, concluding that the applicant's actions of altering and deceiving forensic authorities with fraudulent samples fell within the ambit of these sections.

8. Reason for Bail Denial:

Given the applicant’s absconding status and the serious nature of the allegations, the court found that custodial interrogation was necessary. The court rejected the bail application, citing that the applicant's alleged forgery was serious enough to warrant imprisonment for life under Section 467 IPC.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Section 467 IPC: Forgery of valuable security.
• Section 464 IPC: Making a false document.
• Section 120-B IPC: Criminal conspiracy.
• Section 201 IPC: Causing disappearance of evidence.
• Prevention of Corruption Act: Sections 7, 8, 12, and 13.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that the alleged forgery of a forensic report, meant to shield the applicant’s son from prosecution, amounted to a serious offense under Section 467 IPC. The substitution of blood samples was viewed as a deliberate act of deception involving valuable security, thereby justifying the denial of anticipatory bail.

Subjects: Criminal Law, Forgery, Anticipatory Bail, Conspiracy

Anticipatory Bail, Forgery, Conspiracy, Tampering of Evidence, Criminal Law, Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act