Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 352 (HP)

Suresh Chand Rana v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2022-06-28

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2022
ORDER : All these Petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the same FIR and involve similar questions of fact and law. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court invoking provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), for grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No.6 of 2019, dated 21.11.2019, registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 467 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) in Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (SV & ACB), Hamirpur, District Hamirpur Himachal Pradesh in pursuance to letter dated 21.3.2017. 3. Status Reports stand filed and record was also made available. 4. As per prosecution, petitioners herein are Ex-servicemen and have been re-employed as Teachers in the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh on the basis of their educational qualification including Degree in Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) 5. Complaints dated 10.10.2016 were received in Police Station State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau Hamirpur on 21.3.2017 vide letter dated 17.3.2017 from Dharamshala and vide letter dated 18.3.2017 from Mandi which were sent by complainant Surender Kumar Bajaj, resident of Street No.1, Ward No.2, House No. 4/126, Gobind Nagri, Malout- 152107, District Sri-Mukatsar Sahab, Punjab alleging that petitioners and some other co-accused in present case have produced fake degrees and documents with respect to their educational qualification and therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted, punished and removed from service. 6. On the basis of aforesaid complaints, FIR 6 of 2019 has been registered in Police Station and investigation is being carried out. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that earlier in the year 2006 an anonymous complaint was received against petitioners alleging commission of the same offence by them and, at that time, Investigating Officer, on the basis of the said anonymous complaint, had registered an FIR as complainant and carried out investigation. It has been submitted that during the said investigation, the Investigating Officer enquired and interrogated the petitioners as well as University Authorities/employees and, on verification, found that certificates of petitioners were genuine, and therefore, he closed the inquiry and submitted the cancellation report in Court. After due verification and recording statement of complainant, cancellation report was accepted by Magistrate. It has been submitted that during the said investigation, the Investigating Officer enquired and interrogated the petitioners as well as University Authorities/employees and, on verification, found that certificates of petitioners were genuine, and therefore, he closed the inquiry and submitted the cancellation report in Court. After due verification and recording statement of complainant, cancellation report was accepted by Magistrate. Therefore, it has been contended that same matter cannot be re-opened now and otherwise also, as already verified and investigated by police, the certificates of petitioners are genuine. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that after registration of present FIR, investigation has been undertaken afresh and on enquiry from concerned University, it has been found that not only the certificates, but verification of certificates obtained in previous FIR were not genuine but fake and therefore, not only petitioners but Investigating Officer in previous FIR is also a suspected accused in present case and action has been initiated accordingly and, therefore, it has been submitted that petitioners are not entitled for bail. 9. It has been further submitted that there is sufficient material on record to establish that the certificates of petitioners are not genuine but fake as these certificates have been obtained during continuation of service in Armed Forces and even registration number in College Leaving Certificate and B.Ed. Certificate of one of the petitioners/accused is different, whereas in another case, two certificates having different serial numbers bear one and the same date. 10. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that for ministerial mistake committed by University staff, genuineness of certificate cannot be doubted and further that serial number of duplicate copy is always different to the original one but date of issue remains the same as per date of issuance of certificate or declaration of result and thus, on these grounds, it cannot be presumed that certificates are fake. 11. 11. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that petitioners have joined the investigation, handed over the entire record as taken out by Investigating Officer and have also disclosed the name of University wherefrom they have acquired degrees but after getting proper admission and completing the Course and further that nothing is to be recovered from petitioners and they are in-service candidates against whom similar complaint was registered in the year 2005 but the same was found merit-less and now petitioners have again been implicated in a false case to harass them and their families unnecessarily and, therefore, they are entitled for bail. 12. Learned counsel for petitioners has also placed on record of FIR No. 9 dated 1.2.2005 registered against petitioners at earlier point of time along with statement of complainant and order of Magistrate accepting the cancellation report in that case. 13. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that allegations against petitioners are yet to be established and proved in Court and in case they are not enlarged on bail they shall suffer irreparable loss. 14. It has been further submitted that similarly situated co-accused Himmat Singh in present case i.e. FIR No. 6 of 2019 registered on 21.11.2019, has also been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2365 of 2021, titled Himmat Singh vs. State of HP. 15. Taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances including enlargement of similarly situated person on bail and considering the rival contentions of parties, but without commenting upon merits of evidence collected by Investigating Officer, however taking into note of factors and parameters, as propounded by the Courts including Supreme Court, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, I am of the opinion that petitioners may be enlarged on bail in present case at this stage. 16. Accordingly, petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail, at this stage, subject to furnishing personal bond(s) in the sum of Rs. 16. Accordingly, petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail, at this stage, subject to furnishing personal bond(s) in the sum of Rs. 1 lac each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and also subject to any further conditions to be imposed by trial Court for assuring their presence during trial including the following further conditions :- (i) That the petitioners shall make themselves available during the investigation as well as trial on each and every date as and when required; (ii) That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. They shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; (iii) That the petitioners shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial; (iv) That the petitioners shall not jump over the bail and shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, land line number and/or mobile number, if any, in advance, to concerned Police Station; (v) That the petitioners shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which they are accused or suspected or the commission of which they are suspected; (vi) In the event of repetition of commission of offence, bail granted in present case shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution/police; (vii) That the petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission of Court; (viii) That petitioners shall not misuse their liberty in any manner. 17. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing any such other or further condition on the petitioners as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It will also be open to the trial Court/Magistrate to impose any other or further condition on the petitioners as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice. 18. In case the petitioners violate any condition imposed upon them, their bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 19. 18. In case the petitioners violate any condition imposed upon them, their bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 19. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc.Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.3.2013. 20. Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 21. The parties are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, they may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise. Petitions stand disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms.