JUDGMENT 1. - Both these bail applications arising out of one and same FIR in criminal case and, therefore, are heard and decided together. 2. Mr. V.S. Badhwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Hamid Khan contended that the petitioner Hamid Khan filed a criminal misc. petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 569/2001 challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate dismissing the protest petition. Initially he was represented by Shri Anurag Sharma, Advocate, however finding that up till middle of 2007, the said petition could not be decided, he, therefore, wanted to change the counsel. It was stated that Shri Anurag Sharma, Advocate was previously engaged by Hamid Khan through petitioner Ashish Sharma, Advocate on saying of Kajod Meena, who is said to be closely known to Hamid Khan,,Case file from Shri Anurag Sharma was taken back and entrusted to co-accused Rohan Jain, Advocate by Hamid Khan. 3. Learned counsel submits that forging of the order of this Court is after engaging co-accused Rohan Jain as counsel for Hamid Khan but the order of this Court-was forged without petitioner Hamid Khan's connivance and knowledge. Learned counsel further submits that the challan has been filed against the petitioner Hamid Khan with the add of Section 120-B IPC for entering into criminal conspiracy but according to the learned counsel there is absolutely no evidence indicative of hatching criminal conspiracy. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that co-accused Rohan Jain, Advocate got either the order forged or prepared a fake order and it was the co-accused Rohan Jain through Ummed Singh, Jr. PA. of this Court got the take order prepared/order forged and even after getting order of this Court forged, he has not been supplied with the certified copy of such forged order and as such, he has neither received copy of that forged order nor there is any evidence that copy of the forged order was given or sent to him in order to use that forged order in the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel during the course of arguments submits that the petitioner himself has been cheated by Rohan Jain, Advocate and a report has been submitted to the Deputy Inspector General of Police as also to the Chairman of Bar Association of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur narrating the facts as to how he has been cheated by co-accused Rohan Jain, an advocate engaged by him in the matter. On this report, crime report has been registered being FIR No. 390 dated 10.12.2007 and the matter is under investigation. 5. From the perusal of the statements of various witnesses recorded by the police and filed with the challan papers, it appears that the petitioner Hamid Khan has been challaned with the add of Section 120-B IPC. There is no allegation against him either forging of order or using it as genuine. 6. On careful perusal of the material available - on record, without commenting on the merits of the case, which may prejudice either party in the trial, it does not, prima-facie, appears that the petitioner at any rate has been benefited by that order. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has paid any amount for getting the fake order prepared or forging of order and if at all the counsel engaged by him merely co-accused Rohan Jain got the order forged through Jr. PA. Ummed Singh, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner cannot be held liable for such an act of his counsel Rohan Jain. 7. Mr. Praveen Balwada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Ashish Sharma submits that the petitioner Ashish Sharma has never been counsel in the case, though learned counsel submits that from the statements of the witnesses, it appears that initially Shri Anurag Sharma was engaged on behalf of the petitioner Hamid Khan through Ashish Sharma and thereafter up till middle of 2007, the matter could not be decided and, therefore, he requested Anurag Sharma, Advocate to return the case file as petitioner Hamid Khan wanted to engage some other counsel namely Shri Madhav Mitra. It also appears that the case file was taken back from Shri Anurag Sharma, Advocate so as to engage another counsel and it also appears that after Shri Anurag Sharma, in the matter co-accused Rohan Jain was the counsel engaged and from the statement of the various witnesses, it was the Rohan Jain, Advocate who had been dealing with the case file of Hamid Khan and it also appears that Rohan Jain managed access to Court's file of the case and has been shown with the file at various places and even after getting forged order, Rohan Jain call Ashish Sharma and shown him the order of the Court's, file and thereafter it was co-accused Rohan Jain who directed his Munshi Manish Sharma to procure court's file in the Registry and it was Manish Sharma, Munshi who placed the Court's file in the Registry., Thereafter the copying clerk Shri Arvind Dubey again called the Munshi of Rohan Jain that the title of the order needs to be corrected before issuing certified copy. Thereafter the Munshi took Rohan Jain to the concerned copying clerk and Rohan Jain taken the file from copying clerk Arvind Dubey to Jr. PA. Ummed Singh who bot it corrected in the hand writing of Umrried Singh. Thereafter Somdutt said to have applied and obtained the copy of the said forged order, though Somdutt denied signing on copying application. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that there is direct evidence on record to the effect that the order of this Court was forged by Junior PA. Ummed Singh and, co-accused Rohan Jain got the order forged and, therefore, both of them are involved directly in commission of crime. He has invited my attention to the papers available with him as also challan papers and contended that it was Rohan Jain and co-accused Ummed Singh, Jr. PA. who was involved forging the order'of this Court. According to him as far as petitioner Ashish Sharma is concerned, his role is to the extent that he initially got engaged Shri Anurag Sharma, counsel for Hamid Khan and thereafter took the file back from Shri Anurag Sharma and handed over to co-accused Rohan Jain. 9. Be that as it may. who was involved forging the order'of this Court. According to him as far as petitioner Ashish Sharma is concerned, his role is to the extent that he initially got engaged Shri Anurag Sharma, counsel for Hamid Khan and thereafter took the file back from Shri Anurag Sharma and handed over to co-accused Rohan Jain. 9. Be that as it may. Prima-facie there is no evidence on record to show that petitioner Hamid Khan never asked or requested his counsel Rohan Jain either to forge the order or get the fake order prepared. It is not the prosecution case that petitioner Hamid Khan ever instigated or induced co-accused Rohan Jain to get him such order as also there is no evidence of paying illegally any amount for this purpose. So far as applying and collecting certified copy of order forged, there is prima-facie no evidence. Though, the record shows that it was Somdutt who applied for the copy and got the copy. Petitioner Ashish Sharma has also been challaned with the add of Section 120-B in entering into criminal conspiracy. There had been certain telephonic calls between Rohan Jain and Ashish Sharma, the details of which has been placed on record. From the call details, whether it can be inferred that it was with regard to forging of the order or not or Ashish Sharma contacted Rohan Jain to get the order forged. Role assigned to petitioner Ashish Sharma prima-facie appears that he initially got engaged Shri Anurag Sharma, counsel for Hamid Khan and thereafter took the file back from Shri Anurag Sharma and handed over to co-accused Rohan Jain. 10. In the circumstance, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case and the fact that at the stage of forging the order of this Court, it was Rohan Jain who was counsel in the case and dealt with the case as also had access to Court's file and got the order forged/prepared fake order by Jr. PA. Ummed Singh, may be through his Munshi Sharma. F.S.L. report prima-facie show that, the alleged order, correction therein and signature thereon are that of co-accused Ummed Singh, Junior PA. 11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner Ashish Sharma also submits that Hamid Khan is the person who alleged to have been cheated by Rohan Jain for which a crime report has been lodged, as has been submitted herein before. 11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner Ashish Sharma also submits that Hamid Khan is the person who alleged to have been cheated by Rohan Jain for which a crime report has been lodged, as has been submitted herein before. 12. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner Ashish Sharma is suffering from hypothyroidism diabetes and he was admitted in S.M.S. Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur and placed on record the discharge ticket of Medicine Unit Ill (2F/3F), which shows hospitalization of the petitioner Ashish Sharma from 02.01.2008 to 08.01.2008 and the treatment given to him. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner Ashish Sharma is still suffering from ailment and needs further treatment. Both the petitioners are in custody since November, 2007 and have already suffered about three months imprisonment and offences are triable by Court of Judicial Magistrate and trial is likely to take long time. 13. Be that as it may. Having gone through the material available on record as discussed above, without commenting on the merits of the case which will prejudice either of the party at the trial of the case, the case of the petitioners Hamid Khan and Ashish Sharma is distinguishable from that of co-accused Ummed Singh and Rohan Jain. 14. Accordingly, both the bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that petitioners (1) Ashish Sharma S/o Shri Khem Chand Sharma and (2) Hamid Khan S/o Shri Fateh Khan be released on bail in FIR No. 291/2007, P.S. Ashok Nagar, Jaipur provided each of them executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for their appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.Both bail application allowed. *******