The decision emphasized the importance of considering the merits of the allegations and the potential influence of the accused on the investigation and witnesses in deciding on bail.

SURESH KAIT, J.

1. By way of the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks directions to release him on bail in case FIR No.41/2015 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 419/420/467/468/ 471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner and in the said chargesheet it is stated that FSL result is awaited as specimen handwriting of accused persons and seized documents are being sent to FSL for handwriting comparison. Various reports regarding verification of birth certificates and Voter I-cards used for admission are still awaited and the outcome will be filed through the supplementary chargesheet.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2015. The trial will take its time as the police may file the supplementary chargesheet against the other accused, therefore, till the supplementary chargesheet is filed, the trial will not proceed further.

4. He further submitted that in the present case, the parents and schools were the beneficiaries and at best, without admitting, the petitioner might have received a peanut out of the amount received. He submitted that daughter of the petitioner had already been released on bail, however, her husband is still in custody.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 and Suresh Kalmadi Vs. CBI, 2012 [1] JCC 734.

6. He submitted that even for the heinous offences, the accused therein were released on bail. However, case against the petitioner is triable by the Magistrate; therefore, the petitioner cannot be kept in jail for an unlimited period. Moreover, the investigation is already complete, chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner and there is no apprehension of influencing the witnesses or tempering with the evidence by the petitioner.

7. As per the prosecution case, the present case has been registered as there was nexus of some persons who were getting students admitted under EWS Category with the help of fake EWS Certificates/Caste Certificates. During the course of investigation, verification of EWS Certificates of students, who got admissions in various schools in EWS Quota was got conducted and it was revealed that there are more than 290 cases pertaining to various schools wherein the admissions were taken by the students in EWS category. During the interrogation of parents of children, whose admissions were found on the basis of fake documents at various schools, as well as the school staff and others, it was further revealed that names of the petitioner, her husband and their daughter were also surfaced and that they were running a syndicate, which is involved in getting admissions on the basis of fake EWS Certificates and other documents in lieu of hefty amount. The petitioner, her husband and their daughter have disclosed in their statements that they got prepared fake documents through one Dharam Singh @ Ballan and further used the same for getting admission in EWS category.

8. During the course of investigation, they were found to be involved in more than 30 cases of admissions procured on the basis of fake and forged documents. They even got admitted some children in the identity of other children whose names were appeared in the final list of schools under EWS Quota. Thereafter, the child’s name and his parentage would get change through filing various affidavits as to give their misdeeds in legal shape.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of such admissions in which one Khushi daughter of Neeraj was found to get admission in two schools and the birth certificate and other details furnished in both the admissions were found to be same. Later, names of