Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 650 (HP)

Mool Chand v. State of H. P.

2015-06-03

P.S.RANA

body2015
Order P.S. Rana, J. 1.Present bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with case FIR No. 36 of 2015 dated 9.5.2015 registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC at P.S. Ani District Kullu H.P. 2. It is pleaded that petitioner has been falsely implicated in present case. It is pleaded that petitioner was initially engaged as Beldar on daily wages in the year 1994 and after completion of ten years service the petitioner was given work charge status. It is further pleaded that petitioner was regularized in the month of January 2007 and at the time of regularization the petitioner was directed to furnish the date of birth certificate with the department. It is further pleaded that petitioner had presented the date of birth certificate which was procured by father of the petitioner wherein date of birth of petitioner has been shown as 16.5.1959. It is pleaded that one Shri Om Parkash who was neighbour of petitioner sought the information from the Executive Engineer Outer Seraj Division HPPWD Nirmand regarding the regularization of service of petitioner and information was also sought regarding date of birth of petitioner. It is pleaded that information was given to complainant but complainant was not satisfied with certificate and asked the department to verify the said certificate from school authorities. It is further pleaded that thereafter Executive Engineer Seraj Division HPPWD Nirmand verified the date of birth of petitioner from school authorities and it was found that name of petitioner was not figuring in school as per information supplied by the Principal Govt. Senior Secondary School Teban District Mandi. It is pleaded that school certificate was procured by father of petitioner and there is no mens rea on the part of petitioner and school certificate was obtained by father of petitioner. It is pleaded that matter is relating to documentary evidence and custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required in present case. It is pleaded that petitioner undertakes to join the investigation as and when required by Investigating Agency and would also cooperate with Investigating Agency and would not influence any witness. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report Mr. Om Parkash son of Sita Ram filed complaint that forged certificate was submitted by petitioner in the department. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report Mr. Om Parkash son of Sita Ram filed complaint that forged certificate was submitted by petitioner in the department. There is recital in police report that petitioner has joined the investigation. There is further recital in police report that petitioner Mool Chand had qualified only first and second class exam and petitioner could not read and write Hindi and only could sign. There is further recital in police report that the school certificate was prepared by father of petitioner in the year 1972. There is further recital in police report that as per petitioner version, petitioner has no knowledge that from where the father of petitioner procured the forged certificate. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner and also perused the record. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- 1. Whether anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by applicant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? 2. Final Order. Findings on Point No.1 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and petitioner did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon the petitioner and offence is relating to documentary evidence only and on this ground anticipatory bail application be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. It was held in case reported in 2012 Cri. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. It was held in case reported in 2012 Cri. L.J. 702 Apex Court DB 702, titled Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. It was held that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail is exceptional. It was held that refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In present case there is no recital in police report placed on record that custodial interrogation of petitioner is required. On the other hand there is recital in police report that petitioner has cooperated in investigation of present case. There is further recital in police report that as per investigation forged certificate was procured by father of petitioner. There is further recital in police report that petitioner has studied up to first and second class and petitioner could not read and write Hindi and only could sign. There is recital in police report that school leaving certificate was prepared in the year 1972. It is prima facie proved on record that in the year 1972 when forged certificate was prepared at that time the age of petitioner was 13 years and petitioner was minor. Court is of the opinion that if anticipatory bail is allowed to petitioner at this stage then interest of State and general pubic will not be adversely affected. 8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that if bail is granted to petitioner then petitioner will induce, threat and influence the prosecution witnesses and on this ground bail application be declined is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that conditional anticipatory bail will be granted to petitioner and if petitioner will flout the terms and conditions of anticipatory bail order then prosecution will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail strictly in accordance with law. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2 (Final Order) 9. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2 (Final Order) 9. In view of my findings on point No.1 bail application filed by petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and interim order dated 7.5.2015 is made absolute. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. All pending application(s) if any also disposed of. Bail petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure stands disposed of.