Md. Habibullah @ Hasib vs Officer-In-Charge, Lilong Police Station

This application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR No.105(11)2020 on the file of Lilong Police Station.

The case of the prosecution is that on 11.11.2020, one Beikul Singh, SDC, Lilong, published his office memorandum vide No.2/SDC/L/CERT/88pt as whereas it has been detected by the office while visiting the website https://www/manipuruniv.ac.in// of Manipur University, Chanchipur, Imphal West that one Km Khullakpam Sajida, daughter of late Nihamuddin, who is a resident of Lilong Haoreibi Makha Leikai has been holding and issuing a fake/forged Income and Assets Certificate purporting to be produced by the accused under the category of Economically Weaker Sections being No.2037 dated 23.10.2020 which is allegedly to have been issued by the SDC using photo-shop software technology behind the back and knowledge of the office of the SDC.

Further case of the prosecution is that the said Sajida has used the said fake/forged certificate in question for admission purpose into the Manipur University as if the same was issued by the office of the SDC as genuine one. The office of the SDC clarified that the certificate in question is not related to the office of the SDC in terms of any manner also not having the power and purview to issue such type of illegal certificate to any point of time. Further, the office issued a memorandum to the effect that the said certificate said to have been issued has neither related nor recorded at the office and further clarified that the alleged office number reflected in the said certificate is also fictitious one. Accordingly, the Manipur University, Canchipur can take appropriate action for using such fake certificate for personal gain referring to the office memorandum issued by the SDC. Thereafter, on 13.11.2020, one Md.S.Daulat Khan, SDC, Lilong forwarded the above said office memorandum to the Lilong Police Station for taking action against the commission of forgery vide letter dated 13.11.2020.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that he is innocent to the charges levelled against him. In fact, the petitioner has never committed the said crime alleged by the prosecution. He would submit that the petitioner is running a DTP centre under the name and style of MH Computer Works at Lilong Bazar Alia Lamkhai and he is a family man living with his wife and three minor children and that he is the sole bread winner of his family.

The learned counsel further submitted that earlier the petitioner and one Md. Naskar filed pre-arrest bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal and by an order dated 23.11.2020, the learned Sessions Judge granted interim bail to them. However, to the utmost shock and surprise of the petitioner, by an order dated 18.12.2020, the learned Sessions Judge, vacated the interim bail in respect of the petitioner's case.

The learned counsel next submitted that the petitioner extended his full co-operation in the investigation of the said case thereby appearing before the investigating officer and the investigating officer had also examined and recorded his statement.

The learned counsel then submitted that during the long spanning career of the petitioner, he has not committed any criminal act or offence or with any malicious or criminal intention and if he is arrested, there is every possibility that he would be placed under the suspicious scrutiny of every person and also by the members of his own society which cannot be regained back with time or money. Arguing so, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation reveals that the accused persons had committed the offence by conspiring each other and the said forged Income and Assets Certificate is still kept concealing in the custody of the accused Md. Nasker and that the seals which were used in the commission of the crime is also still concealing in the custody of the present petitioner with an intend to dissuade themselves from the liability of the case. He would submit that contradicting with each other, the accused persons have given their statements in this case and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner and other accused are highly required so as to enable to recover and seize the original forged Income and Assets Certificate and seals from their possession.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that as disclosed by the accused Md. Arish Khan and as the suspicious existed, the computer centre run by the petitioner was raided on 14.11.2020 and seized many articles. Though the investigating officer during investigation directed the accused Sajida and Arish Khan to produce the original copy of the Income and Assets Certificate in order to seize the same, they have failed to produce the same. Further, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the release of the co-accused on bail.

This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the materials available on record.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, it is stated that on the date of incident, the accused Md. Arish Khan made a call to the accused Md. Naskar from his DTP centre and the said Arish Khan requested him to talk with Md. Naskar. Thereafter, the said Md. Naskar requested him that Arish Khan is well known to him and to make a scan copy of the alleged certificate. As requested by one of his regular customer, he acceded to his request in good faith without thinking of any adverse consequences. However, later on he came to learnt that a photocopy of the alleged scan certificate was used by the accused Sajida at the time of her admission at Manipur University. In fact, the accused Sajida is a stranger to the petitioner whereas Arish Khan is unknown to the petitioner though he met him at his DTP centre for the first time on the said day. Therefore, there is no question of conspiracy amongst them and no agreement was made between them to do the alleged offence at any point of time.

It appears that earlier, the petitioner and accused Md. Naskar approached the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal, by filing Criminal Miscellaneous (AB) Case No.65 of 2020 for granting anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the rival submissions, by the order dated 18.12.2020, disposed of the application by observing as under:

"Considering all these, the interim bail granted to the accused/petitioner No.1 Md. Basker vide order dated 23.11.2020 is hereby made absolute on the same condition. And in respect of accused/petitioner No.2, Md. Habibullah @ Habib, the prayer for seeking anticipatory bail is rejected and the interim order passed on 23.11.2020 stands vacated.

Accordingly, this Cril. Misc. (AB) case is disposed of."

The learned Sessions Judge is also of the view that the petitioner had prepared the forged Income and Assets Certificate standing in the name of Sajida along with the unfiled Income and Assets Certificate format which was brought by the accused Md. Arish Khan and the same was handed over to Md. Arish Khan. To controvert the same, the petitioner has not produced any material before this Court.

It is to be noted that prima facie the investigation reveals that the accused person had committed the offence by conspiring each other and the said original forged Income and Assets Certificate and the seals which were used in the commission of the crime is also still concealing in the custody of the petitioner with an intend to dissuade themselves from the liability of the case.

At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are lot of contradictions in the statements given by the accused persons and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much essential so as to enable the investigating officer to recover and seize the original forged Income and Assets Certificate and seals from his possession for smooth investigation of the case. This Court finds some merits in the argument advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Since the investigation is on and four accused persons are concealing the fact of the case by diverting the charge with each other so as to dissuade themselves from the liability of the case and the real fact of the case is still unknown and the forged Income and Assets Certificate and the seals which were used in the commission of the crime is also still unrecovered, this Court finds that there is no ground for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required in order to recover and seize the original forged Income and Assets Certificate and seals.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no point and ground at this stage to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and therefore, the anticipatory bail petition is dismissed.