https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308392 Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was refused because the allegations involved forgery, alterations in documents and false representations before public authorities, and custodial interrogation was considered necessary to recover and verify the disputed documents and determine the appellant's role in the alleged fabrication. The prior refusal of anticipatory bail was therefore held justified in the circumstances, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jun 2023 18:14:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308392 Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was refused because the allegations involved forgery, alterations in documents and false representations before public authorities, and custodial interrogation was considered necessary to recover and verify the disputed documents and determine the appellant's role in the alleged fabrication. The prior refusal of anticipatory bail was therefore held justified in the circumstances, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308392