Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 271 (GUJ)

RAMKISHAN RAMDHARI YADAV v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2007-04-24

M.D.SHAH

body2007
M. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Learned A. P. P. Mr. K. P. Raval waives service of rule on behalf of the the respondent-State. ( 2 ) THE applicant-original accused has preferred this application for anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with the offence registered as C. R. 1.-389 of 2004 on a complaint having been filed by one Shri Jeetendrakumar H. Sheth on 30-10-2004 which is registered with Bapunagar Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the alleged offences under Secs. 406, 420,467, 468, 401, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE complainant in this case is the Education Inspector, Ahmedabad. The allegations in the complaint are to the effect the present applicant-Administrator Parth Higher Secondary School along with other accused who are the Officers of the said School had prepared fake records, Register, muster roll, school leaving certificates and after destroying the originals of these documents treated the fake documents as genuine and on the strength of such fake documents admitted students to the Std XI and. It is further allege that on 29-3-2004 on inspection it was found that several dummy students had appeared in the examination. Thereafter, upon seizure and checking of the records of the school by the authority it was found that the names of the students had been posted in the register on the basis of false and fabricated newly created documents which were prepared between the night of 28-3-2004 and 29-3-2004. It was also found that the records and documents in respect of Std. XI students for the year 2002-2003 were forged ones and admissions were given on the basis of such forged documents. Most of these forged documents bore the signature of the present applicant and Anr. accused. By the aforesaid acts, it is alleged in the complaint that the present applicant and other accused had pocketed huge amounts of illegal gains and thereby committed breach of trust and had cheated the the public and the State. ( 4 ) THE applicant had earlier moved for anticipatory bail by way of Criminal Misc. Application No. 872 of 2007 before the learned Sessions Judge,fast Track Court No. 1,ahmedabad, however, the same was rejected vied his order dated 13-3-2007 giving rise to the present Misc. Criminal Application. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. ( 4 ) THE applicant had earlier moved for anticipatory bail by way of Criminal Misc. Application No. 872 of 2007 before the learned Sessions Judge,fast Track Court No. 1,ahmedabad, however, the same was rejected vied his order dated 13-3-2007 giving rise to the present Misc. Criminal Application. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Charge Bhatt for the applicant vehemently argued that the present applicant is already enlarged on bail in respect of C. R. No. 157 of 2004 of Bapunagar Police Station and he has not misused the liberty granted to him. According to the learned Counsel, the first complaint lodged on 29-3-2004 is based on the same facts and the second complaint dt. 30-10-2004 at Annexure a is simply a detailed version of the first complaint and that the allegation made in the complaint are based only on the statement of co-accused which cannot be relied upon to form the basis of arrest against the present petitioner. Learned Counsel next argued that during investigation all the relevant records and documents have been seized by the police, and therefore, the question of custodial interrogation does not arise. According to the learned Counsel other co-accused have already been released on bail and as such the application of the present applicant also deserves to be allowed. Learned Counsel next argued that the present applicant is aged about 65 years, he was the Managing Trustee of the school since 1982 and had recently retired from Raghunath Hindi Higher Secondary School, that he is a permanent resident of Ahmedabad having his own properties, and therefore, he is also not likely to abscond and would be available for trial. Lastly, it has been argued by the learned Counsel that the primary responsibility to maintain the records and register of the school is upon the Principal of the school as per the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974 and as the present applicant is the Managing Trustee of the school he has no knowledge with regard to the forged documents, records and register etc. Learned Counsel Mr. Bhargav Bhatt has also placed on record his written submissions almost on the same lines. This Court has also gone through the same very carefully. He has also placed reliance on the following authorities in support of his submissions: 1. Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Cr.) 465. Learned Counsel Mr. Bhargav Bhatt has also placed on record his written submissions almost on the same lines. This Court has also gone through the same very carefully. He has also placed reliance on the following authorities in support of his submissions: 1. Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Cr.) 465. 2. Babu Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P. reported in 1978 SCC (Cr.)133. 3. T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in and 4. Special Criminal Application No. 896 of 2004 and cognate matters. ( 6 ) AS against that learned A. P. P. Mr. K. P. Raval while strongly opposing the application has submitted that there is prima facie involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the crime, and the application deserves to be dismissed. ( 7 ) THIS Court has given anxious thought and consideration to the submissions made at the Bar by the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the facts emerging from the set of papers of investigation in great details. At the outset, the argument canvassed by the learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. Bhargav Bhatt to the effect that the second complaint dt. 30-10-2004 is simply a detailed version of the first complaint cannot be accepted even for a moment since during investigation it is found that a racket of bogus admissions have been detected by the Officers of the Education Department, and prima facie it is found that students who have failed in the Std. X examinations have been admitted to Std.. Moreover, dummy students were found to have appeared in the Std. XII examinations with the aid of fake documents prepared overnight by the present petitioner and other accused whereby they had earned huge amount of illegal gains. The submission made by the learned Counsel that the averments made in the complaint are based on the statement of the co-accused alone, and therefore, the same cannot be relied upon for forming a basis of arrest against the petitioner is of no significance as in the present case the statement of other staff members who were not co-accused were also recorded by the Officers of the Education Department which are admissible in evidence and can be looked into while deciding the bail application. The submission that the present applicant being a Managing Trustee is not aware about the preparation of documents, maintaining of register etc cannot be of any help to the applicant as almost all the documents, receipts etc. bore the signature of the present applicant and other accused. The submission that the co-accused have already been released on bail, and therefore, the present petitioner is also required to be released does not merit acceptance in view of the fact that the case of each applicant will depend upon the facts of that particular case, and therefore, there cannot be a binding precedent. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or rejecting bail. Reference may be had to the decision rendered in the case of Gajanand Agarwal v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in AIR SCW 4753 wherein the Apex Court has held that it is fairly well settled that orders of bail are not necessarily orders of any precedent value. It is worthwhile to note here that the application for bail of one of the co-accused has been rejected by this Court vide order passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3150 of 2007 in connection with the same offence. ( 8 ) IN view of what is discussed herein above, the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie there is involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the crime, and therefore, this is not a fit case where discretion under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised, more particularly, when the present applicant is charged with the offences where the future of the students generation would be at stake and a wrong signal would be sent to the public at large if any lenient view is taken. Thus, considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the punishment prescribed thereto under law and in the larger interest of the public and the State, this application is liable to be rejected. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.