Bhupinder Minden vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J.—This is an application u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the Petitioner on bail in FIR No. 13 of 2010 dated 19.10.2010, registered at Police Station State CID Bharari, Shimla, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 473, 474, 120B Indian Penal Code. The status report has been filed which has been perused.

It has been stated in the application that in pursuance of FIR No. 13 of 2010 the investigating agency recently visited the native place of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner came to know about the registration of the case. The Petitioner apprehends his arrest in FIR No. 13 of 2010. The other accused in the FIR have been enlarged on bail.

The house of the Petitioner gutted in fire on 11.2.2010 which is clear from the daily diary report dated 12.2.2010 recorded at Police Station, Rampur Bushahr. The certificates of the Petitioner pertaining to the education which were kept at his native place were also gutted in the fire on 11.2.2010 which broke out in the house.

The Petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The Petitioner belongs to respectable family. The Petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail.

The bail application has been opposed by the learned Assistant Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of letter dated 18.10.2010 of the Vice Chancellor. It has come in the investigation that one Gurvinder alias Pammi alias Pankaj resident of Bani, Kholighat, Post Office Khuni, Tehsil and Police Station, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla presently resident of Sector 4, New Shimla used to arrange and prepare forged certificates.

It has come in investigation that Petitioner has obtained fake certificates of B.A.-II and B.A.-III from accused Gurvinder and on the basis of these fake certificates secured admission in MBA. The photocopies of B.A.-I, B.A.-II and B.A.-III certificates of Petitioner have been taken into possession from the institute. It has been stated that originals of copies of fake certificates are to be recovered and Petitioner is to be thoroughly interrogated. It has been submitted that in view of the gravity of the offence, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the police file. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Gurvinder Singh has been released on bail in December, 2010. The learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that the investigating agency has right to file supplementary challan or independent challan after bifurcating the cases. It is not necessary to go into the larger issues. The core question involved in the case is that according to the investigating agency, the case is very serious inasmuch as it has come during investigation that fake certificates of the University have been prepared by the accused in connivance with each other.

The Petitioner knows who is legally competent to issue the certificates. The material collected by the investigating agency from Gurvinder Singh prima-facie indicates that the fake certificates have been issued in the name of the Petitioner also. The investigating agency is pressing for custodial interrogation of the Petitioner to bring out the truth and to recover the original certificates in question from the Petitioner, who has taken the plea that the certificates have been destroyed in the house situated at his native place on 11.2.2010.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the other accused have been released on bail is of No. help to the Petitioner in the application for anticipatory bail. The role of the Petitioner is to be independently investigated by the investigating agency. Thus, keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail, resultantly, the bail application is dismissed.

The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.