Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Hemant Kumar @ Hemant Kumar Saraswat – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.18604 of 2021
Decided on : 21-12-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 - Non-bailable offence - Forged marksheet/Degree – Offence of Cheating – Seeking Anticipatory bail - Applicant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School during the period after obtaining his B.Ed. Degree during Session from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra. He joined his services and continued to work their for about ten years after which his services have been terminated - It was alleged that the B.Ed. mark-sheet and degree which was one of required qualifications for the appointment was found to be forged and as such the present First Information Report has been lodged.
Finding of the court:
Anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary remedy, should be resorted to only in a special case. The case prima facie indicates involvement of the applicant in offence-in-question as he was the beneficiary by making use of forged mark-sheet/degree. Applicant has not established any special circumstance. No reason is found to falsely implicate present applicant - It is settled principle of law that departmental and criminal proceedings are distinct and have different standards of proof. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The issue drawing attention of Apex Court is with regards to the termination of the applicant. Present First Information Report is with regards to filing of the forged document being the B.Ed. mark-sheet/degree on the basis of which employment was sought and was given. Matter of termination and lodging of First Information Report/the investigation/trial if any, are altogether two different proceedings and are not in any manner linked with each other - it is evident that the first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected on 15.06.2021 on merits. In so far as, the orders of the other persons are concerned who have been granted anticipatory bail/interim anticipatory bail, the same are not binding on this Court. While rejecting the first anticipatory bail application, Court was of the opinion that during investigation even at times custodial interrogation may be necessary to reach the roots of the crime, the same cannot be overlooked.
Result: Anticipatory bail application is rejected
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Swapnesh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Surya Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kant, Senior Advocate, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the records.
2. This second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant Hemant Kumar @ Hemant Kumar Saraswat, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 0067 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Manth, District Mathura.
3. The first anticipatory bail application being Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 11802 of 2021 (Hemanth Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) was rejected by Hon’ble Vivek Agarwal, J. vide order dated 15.06.2021. The said order is quoted herein-below:
This application seeking anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved of registration of a criminal case registering Case Crime No. 0067 of 2021 at Police Station-Manth, District-Mathura, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Allegation on the applicant is that he is a beneficiary of a forged marksheet, which he had allegedly obtained from Agra University, showing him to have qualified the B.Ed Examination in the academic session 2004-05, whereas according to the applicant neither his marksheet is forged nor there is any manipulation.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that on the strength of this marksheet, he was appointed as 'Assistant Teacher' in a primary school where he had joined his services on 29.12.2010 and he continued to work for about 10 years when his service was terminated. It is submitted that applicant is innocent and under similar facts and circumstances in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8248 of 2021 (Lokendra Pal Singh and 17 Others) benefit of anticipatory bail has been extended.
Learned A.A.G., in his turn, submits that interim protection was afforded in case of Lokendra Pal Singh because learned A.G.A. in that case had not produced instructions and therefore, matter was thought to be considered on a later date and interim protection was granted till 27.04.2021. Sri Vinod Kant submits that his instructions are complete. There is a racket going on in the State of Uttar Pradesh where beneficiaries are obtaining forged marksheets in connivance with the middleman and the main conspirators, who are having thorough knowledge of the system, operationalized in various universities.
It is submitted that authorities are deliberately trying to protect the concerned officials of the university, who in collusion with certain other persons, manipulated with the marksheet and cheated innocent persons like applicant.
Applicant has directly come to this Court because F.I.R. was lodged on 20.04.2021. Therefore, applicant has been able to make out an extraordinary circumstances in the light of the judgment of Five Judges Bench of this Court in case of Ankit Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and another; 2020 (3) ADJ 165 (F.B.)., by directly approaching this Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that applicant is a beneficiary of a forged marksheet. It is a matter of investigation as to whether applicant had actually appeared in the examination conducted by the university and had obtained a genuine marksheet or whether he is a party to the offence or is a victim of the offence, committed by certain other influential accused persons, which may include officials of the university. In view of such facts, it is necessary that applicant surrender before the Court and cooperate with the Investigating Officer, inasmuch as, the ch
The court reaffirms that anticipatory bail is not to be granted where there is substantial evidence indicating involvement in serious offences affecting societal interests.
Point of Law : Bail - Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cas....
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly in serious cases, and requires compliance with court conditions; failure to do so can lead to rejection of bail applications.
Anticipatory Bail – Successive anticipatory bail applications cannot be maintained without any change in circumstances.
Anticipatory bail can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and successive bail applications should demonstrate a change in circumstances.
The court emphasized the delicate balance between personal liberty and societal interest in deciding anticipatory bail applications, considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the accused'....
The discretion for granting anticipatory bail should be exercised with care and circumspection, and the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant, and the possibility of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
