accused is not in India. The learned counsel submitted that at the time of filing of the application, he was here, and only later, he left India. Whether he left prior to the filing or after the filing, he cannot claim pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, I am not inclined to grant him bail, because on a perusal of the police report, I find that there is strong suspicion that the cheque was actually forged by him, or at his instance. Of course, the forged cheque was presented by the 1st accused, but the police report shows that it was not in fact forged by him. As regards the 2nd accused, the police report is not very specific, except that he had offered his helps and co-operation to the 1st accused for starting the proposed business, 'U-Kamar Construction and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.' From the police report, I find that the alleged cheque was in fact handed over to the 1st accused by the 3rd accused. It is yet to be detected whether it was actually forged by the 3rd accused or somebody else at his instance. In the above factual situation, bail cannot be granted to the 3rd accused, especially when he is not in India. As regards the others, I find that definite materials are yet to be collected. The person who actually forged the cheque is yet to be detected. In the
