MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT GWALIOR
S.A.Dharmadhikari, J.
Devraj Gandhi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
M.Cr.C. No. 12514 of 2020
Decided On : 28-04-2020
Bail - Forgery - GNM Marksheet - Summary: The court rejected the bail application of the applicant who was accused of procuring a forged GNM marksheet for another person to secure a government job. The court considered the allegations, the applicant's role as a middleman, and the ongoing investigation, and concluded that no case for grant of bail was made out.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for bail under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for being arrested in connection with offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. The allegations involved procuring a forged GNM marksheet for another person to secure a government job.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the arguments from both sides, concluded that no case for grant of bail was made out and rejected the application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the allegations and the ongoing investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the applicant's role as a middleman and the ongoing investigation, and found no grounds for granting bail.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail application of the applicant.
JUDGMENT
1. The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
2. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Thatipur, Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.27/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.
3. Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he along with other co-accused persons was involved in procuring forged GNM markesheet for co-accused Mamta Mittal, on the strength of which, she was able to get a Government job as a contractual Staff Nurse.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated on the basis of memorandum of coaccused Mamta recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. He is in custody since 3/3/2020. He is not named in the FIR. He is a Government servant aged about 55 years working as UDC. The money in question was transferred from the account of applicant to co-accused Devendra Balmik through cheque for some different purpose and the same has nothing to do with the marksheet issued in favour of Mamta. Attention has also been invited to the guidelines issued to all the States and Union Territories by the Apex Court for de-congesting the prisons in suo motu W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 (IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS) to consider release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less by constituting a High Powered Committee. Applicant is a permanent resident of Gwalior and there is no likelihood of her absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. It is submitted that the applicant acted as a middleman by transferring money to the co-accused for procuring the forged marksheet. On the basis of the said marksheeet co-accused Mamta Mittal got a job as Staff Nurse in 2013 and was rendering services since then. Investigation is still pending. As such, no indulgence is warranted at this stage.
6. However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of bail is made out.
8. The application, therefore, stands rejected.
9. E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible by the office of this Court.
Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.