ORDER : 1. This is the 1st bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the Applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 68/2018 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG) for the offence under Sections 420 and 467 IPC. 2. Prosecution case is that Complainant Ashok Agrawal had lodged FIR alleging that on 30.03.2007, the present Applicant had executed an agreement by making forged signature of the Complainant for selling his house i.e. House No. A-1, Satya Nivas bearing Khasra No. 28/61 situated at Street No. 2, Plot No. 294/4, Block No. 4, Behind LIC Building, Magarpara, Talapara, Bilaspur which was witnessed by Dilip Khandelwal and Ramnesh Vidhani. It is alleged that though seal of Notary Varun Kumar Pandey was present in the said agreement but copy of the said agreement was not notarized and attesting witnesses Dilip Khandelwal and Ramnesh Vidhani have given affidavits stating that no such agreement has been executed, therefore, the offence as aforesaid has been registered against the present Applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question for which, he is in jail since 05.07.2023. He further submits that the accused person/Applicant is tenant of the Complainant and the Complainant had also filed a Civil Suit for eviction on 05.05.2007 against the Applicant and his wife before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur vide Civil Suit No. 18-A/2013 in which, though an eviction decree has been passed against the present Applicant and his wife vide judgment dated 13.11.2014, but, the present Applicant had taken a specific defence of the said agreement (Ex.D-2) and the concerned Court had not given any finding that the said agreement was executed in a forged manner and in Para-37 of the said judgment, it has been observed that the Applicant had failed to examine any witness to prove the said document and further in para-38, it has been mentioned that for the sake of argument, if the said agreement is presumed to be genuine, then it does not affect the scope of landlord-tenancy suit. He emphasized that the said agreement is a questioned document, even in the Civil Suit, the dispute was about the said document which is purely of a civil nature. He emphasized that the said agreement is a questioned document, even in the Civil Suit, the dispute was about the said document which is purely of a civil nature. He further submits that for the same document, the Complainant had earlier filed a Complaint Case in which also, police station, Civil Lines had given report stating that no case is made out and the said fact has been recorded in the order dated 22.02.2012 and thereafter, vide order dated 06.11.2017, the JMFC, Bilaspur had passed a detailed order dismissing the same by giving cogent reasons but the Complainant had cleverly concealed the said facts before the local police having hand in glove and registered the 2nd FIR at the same police station and without making any proper enquiry, Head Constable - Ajay Chourasiya had lodged the impugned FIR, which clearly amounts to abuse of process of law as the finding given in the earlier criminal case had attained finality, therefore, the police has no authority to reopen the case without any foundation. He further submits that both the Courts below i.e. the Magistrate and 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur had not examined the true perspective of the facts of the case and rejected the bail application of the Applicant in a mechanical manner though the Applicant had a good case at least for grant of regular bail. He lastly submits that the Applicant is a senior citizen and conclusion of trial is likely to take quite some time, therefore, he may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-Applicant/State formally opposed the bail application. Upon being asked whether the questioned document was sent for examination by any Government Handwriting Expert, she fairly submits that only a report of Private Handwriting Expert namely Sunanda Dhenge is available in the case diary and no other material is available which denotes that the questioned document has ever been sent to any Government Handwriting Expert. She further submits that the present Applicant had already been granted interim protection and vide order dated 12.06.2023 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 55/2018, the Division Bench of this Court had dismissed his Petition as having become infructuous and thereafter, he was arrested on 05.07.2023. She fairly submits that the Complainant had suppressed the fact that the earlier complaint has been dismissed by the JMFC. 5. She fairly submits that the Complainant had suppressed the fact that the earlier complaint has been dismissed by the JMFC. 5. Learned Counsel for the Complainant had also opposed the prayer for bail. He, however, fairly submits that while lodging the FIR, the Complainant had not given details of dismissal of the earlier Complaint Case. 6. In the matter of Poonam Chand Jain and Another vs. Fazru, (2010) 2 SCC 631 , it was observed from Paras-15 to 18, which read as under: “15. Almost similar questions came up for consideration before this Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Another vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876 . The majority judgment in Pramatha Nath (supra) was delivered by Kapur, J. His Lordship held that an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short “the Code”) is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. This Court explained the exceptional circumstances as: (a) where the previous order was passed on incomplete record. (b) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint. (c) the order which was passed was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish. (d) where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings. 16. This Court in Pramatha Nath made it very clear that interest of justice cannot permit that after a decision has been given on a complaint upon full consideration of the case, the complainant should be given another opportunity to have the complaint enquired into again. In paragraph 50 of the judgment the majority judgment of this Court opined that fresh evidence or fresh facts must be such which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record. This Court very clearly held that it cannot be settled law which permits the complainant to place some evidence before the Magistrate which are in his possession and then if the complaint is dismissed adduce some more evidence. According to this Court, such a course is not permitted on a correct view of the law. 17. This question again came up for consideration before this Court in Jatinder Singh vs. Ranjit Kaur, AIR 2001 SC 784 . According to this Court, such a course is not permitted on a correct view of the law. 17. This question again came up for consideration before this Court in Jatinder Singh vs. Ranjit Kaur, AIR 2001 SC 784 . There also this Court by relying on the principle in Pramatha Nath held that there is no provision in the Code or in any other statute which debars complainant from filing a second complaint on the same allegation as in the first complaint. But this Court added when a Magistrate conducts an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code and dismisses a complaint on merits a second complaint on the same facts could not be made unless there are “exceptional circumstances.” This Court held in Para 12, if the dismissal of the first complaint is not on merit but the dismissal is for the default of the complainant then there is no bar in the filing a second complaint on the same facts. However, if the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code was on merit the position will be different. 18. Saying so, the learned Judges in Ranjit Kaur, AIR 2001 SC 784 held that the controversy has been settled by this Court in Pramatha Nath (supra) and quoted the observation of Kapur, J. in Para 48 of Pramatha Nath (supra): 48......An order of dismissal under S. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances e.g. where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot be said to be in the interest of justice that after a decision has been given against the complainant upon a full consideration of his case, he or any other person should be given another opportunity to have his complaint enquired into.” Mere dismissal of W.P. (Cr) cannot be a ground or authority for the police to arrest any person unless the case thereof necessitates. Misusing the power of arrest and elaborate guidelines have already been dealt with in the matter of Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2022) 1 SCC 676 and the relevant Para i.e. Para-10 reads as under: “10. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.” 7. In Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 also, it has been held that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion and the principles laid down in the case laws cited above which discuss the lodging of the FIR and power of police officer to arrest any person, this Court is of the considered view that no proper exercise has been made before arresting the present Applicant and the arrest was made in a very mechanical manner though the present Applicant is not hazardous to the society, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail the present Applicant. 9. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that on Applicant’s furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he shall be released on bail. He shall however, make his appearance before the concerned Court as and when so directed. 10. 9. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that on Applicant’s furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he shall be released on bail. He shall however, make his appearance before the concerned Court as and when so directed. 10. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned State Counsel who in turn, shall provide the same to the Director General of Police to examine the facts of the case. The Director General of Police is directed to issue appropriate circular to all the police officers and also examine the procedure they adopt in arresting and if any of them is found to have failed to follow the said guidelines, then he shall deal with them sternly.