Point of law: Grant of bail based on Forged and fabricated Covid-19 certificate - Court in exercise of powers under S. 340 Cr.P.C. read with S. 195 Cr.PC., directs Registrar General to refer matter to Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate to conduct an inquiry and proceed in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. A forged and fabricated Covid-19 certificate filed by the Petitioner to seek extension of his interim bail is the gravamen of the issue being considered. The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in severe pressure on criminal Courts including in bail matters etc. Hundreds of cases have been filed before Courts, where bail or extension of bail has been sought on the basis of Covid-19 test reports however; it is not in all cases that such reports are genuine. As the facts of the present case would reveal, the Petitioner initially obtained interim bail from the trial court. Thereafter he sought extension of the bail, which was declined. He then approached this court by filing the present petition, on the basis of a test report purportedly showing him to be COVID-19 positive. On the strength of the said report, extension was granted for his surrender. He then absconded and non-bailable warrants were issued by this court. Finally, he was arrested and is currently in custody. During this process, it was revealed that the Covid-19 test report which was filed before this Court was forged and various facts were fabricated. Further probing raised doubts that several persons may have played a role in misleading this Court including the Petitioner, his four nephews as also his counsel. During the course of proceedings, when status reports were sought from the police authorities, the verification was not properly done and a false Covid-19 test report was verified as being authentic and genuine. The facts also reveal several dents even amongst the staff of the District MMG Hospital, Ghaziabad, UP (hereinafter as ‘Hospital’) where the Petitioner was allegedly admitted for a few hours and from where he absconded. As the case progressed, various facets were revealed which resulted in this Court directing an inquiry by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the Delhi High Court.

2. The Registrar (Vigilance) has, after conducting a detailed inquiry submitted her report dated 5th December, 2020. A copy of the report was supplied to the parties and to their ld. counsels. Submissions were heard in the matter and judgment was thereafter reserved.

Brief chronology of events

3. An FIR No. 326/17 was registered against the Petitioner under Section 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of organized Crime Act, 1999 “MACOCA”, at PS Karawal Nagar, (North-East) Delhi. The Petitioner was in judicial custody since 20th March, 2018. On 1st June, 2020 he was released on bail by the duty ASJ, North East District, Karkardooma Courts on the ground that his wife has to undergo surgery for gallbladder. Since the operation was delayed, extension of bail was sought. The Petitioner’s wife’s surgery was conducted on 16th June, 2020. Bail was thereafter extended by the Trial Court and finally vide order dated 25th June, 2020 the Petitioner was directed to surrender before the authorities on or before 29th June, 2020. The application seeking interim bail on the said date was dismissed, however, the Petitioner did not surrender. He created an excuse that he visited the Mandoli Jail but was not permitted to surrender on the ground that all interim bail was extended till 15th July, 2020. On 6th July, 2020, however, when he moved another application seeking extension of interim bail, the application seeking extension of bail was dismissed. The Court had also forfeited the bail bond and non-bailable warrants were issued against the Petitioner. Various allegations were leveled by the Petitioner against the Superintendent Central Jail Mandoli on the ground that he was not permitted to surrender. The Court at Karkardooma issued notice to the Superintendent Central Jail Mandoli on 7th July, 2020 and called for a reply on 13th July, 2020. The entire stage then shifts to the High Court. A Vakalatnama is stated to have been executed by the Petitioner in favour of two