AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 401 wordsA. Badharudeen, J
1.This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
The prosecution case as could be read out from the case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor is that, in between 01.10.2022 and 07.12.2022, the petitioner/accused herein forged Income Certificates of various persons through E-District Portal, taking note of the situation whereby online Income Certificates were made mandatory to get Social Security Pension to various persons.
The prosecution alleges further that, the petitioner herein/accused forged 22 certificates showing lesser income so as to give Social Security Pension to many persons as against their real income. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 466, 468 and 471 of IPC.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that, the petitioner is innocent and the allegations are false. According to him, the wrong entries in the certificates happened as a result of technical error. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is a person having heart disease. Therefore, the learned counsel pressed for grant of anticipatory bail.
The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed grant of bail, on the submission that, the investigation is on the initial stage, in a case, where the allegations are serious and therefore custodial interrogation, recovery of Computer and other accessories alleged to have used for forging the documents are essential part of the investigation.
On going through the materials available the allegations are very much serious and the case diary suggest that the petitioner/accused, who has been running 'Jana Sevana Kendram' nearby her house, forged twenty two certificates and forgery was primarily detected on recovery of the original certificates showing higher income to the above 22 persons. In such a case, arrest, custodial interrogation as well as recovery of the Computer and other accessories alleged to have used for forging the documents and the forged documents are very much essential to accomplish meaningful investigation.
In such case, the grant of anticipatory bail would go to the root of the matter or else that tantamounts to acquittal of the accused at the initial stage of the investigation itself. Therefore, the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the petitioner is found to be not sustainable. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.