Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DEVENDRA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
ABAIL/11823/2022
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - FORGERY - REJECTION
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Devendra Singh, was accused of preparing a forged High School Marksheet and using it to obtain a job in the Army and as a Security Guard in a State Bank of India branch. The prosecution alleged that the applicant had failed the High School Examination twice and had never obtained a genuine High School certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had not produced any evidence to show that he had passed the High School Examination and that the High School certificate he had used to obtain employment was forged.
Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the prosecution's evidence of forgery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted in suitable cases. The court found that the applicant had not presented any evidence to support his claim of innocence and that the prosecution's evidence of forgery was strong. The court also noted that the applicant had failed to surrender to the court as directed in a previous order.
Final Decision: The court rejected the applicant's anticipatory bail application.
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S
438 CR.P.C. No. - 11823 of 2022
Applicant :- Devendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Rai,Durgesh Kumar
Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
01. Heard Sri Ankit Agarwal holding brief of Sri Garun Pal Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
respondent no.3 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and
perused the papers on record.
02. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in
Case Crime no.351 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471
I.P.C., P.S. Naujheel, District Mathura.
03. As per prosecution case, the applicant Devendra Singh prepared a
forged High School Marksheet and on the basis of that he obtained job in
the Army and thereafter on the basis of that forged paper he has been
working as Security Guard in Gram Tarauli branch of State Bank of India,
Mathura.
04. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he is innocent and that
he has been falsely implicated in this case on the information of co-
villagers out of personal enmity. It is stated that the applicant failed two
times in High School Examination and further he was successful in his
third attempt and on that basis he was employed.
05. The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the opposite side.
Following facts and arguments have been placed before me.
1. that the applicant has produced no copy of the high school marksheet or
certificate apparently to show that in fact he passed high school
examination in a particular year the third time and he was given
employment on that paper only.
2. that the applicant moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
No.26363 of 2022 which was finally disposed of on 30.09.2022 with a
direction to the applicant to move surrender application within four weeks
from the date of order and further direction that in case such application is
moved, it shall be decided in the light of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773. Admittedly
the applicant did not surrender in the light of above order.
3. that after investigation chargesheet has been submitted and it was found
that high school certificate on the basis whereof the applicant got the job
was in fact never issued by the Board.
4. Chargesheet against him has been submitted.
06. It may be kept in mind that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary
remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only. The power cannot be
utilized in a routine manner as a substitute for regular bail. This
discretionary power calls for existence of facts of the kind where the court
is satisfied that its interference is necessary to further the cause of justice
and to prevent misuse of process of law.
07. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find it fit
case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail.
08. Hence the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
09. The court below shall pass orders based on material before it, without
being influenced by any of the observations made herein.
Order Date :- 9.1.2023
Asha
Digitally signed by :-
ASHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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
