The High Court rejected the applicant's second anticipatory bail application seeking protection against arrest in a forgery case involving fake mark sheets. The court found the supporting verification letter unreliable due to investigative denial of its issuance and the nature of allegations.
Anticipatory bail application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 638 of 2022
Applicant :- Rohit Mihsra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Ganguly, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
This second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Rohit Mihsra , seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 0663 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur.
The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant being Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 17892 of 2021 (Rohit Mishra Vs. State of U.P.) was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2021.
On 05.04.2022 the following order was passed:-
"Sri Ashutosh Gaguly, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State are present.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon Annexure-4 to the affidavit which purports to be a letter dated 13.08.2019 issued by the SubInspector of Police Station Narahi, District Ballia. The true copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-SA1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 21.01.2022.
Learned counsel for the State states that the said document is not in the case diary and prays for time to seek specific instructions particularly with regard to the said document. The same is allowed.
Let the matter be listed on 25.04.2022 as fresh."
Learned counsel for the State has filed an affidavit of compliance dated 16.05.2022 to which undated counter affidavit has been filed. Both the affidavits are on record.
The prosecution case as per the First Information Report lodged on 01.08.2018 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC by Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar Dubey against the applicant is that the appointment of Police Constables and PAC Constables was to be done by direct recruitment in Uttar Pradesh in the year 2015. In the same, the selected candidate having Enrollment No. 00126893 (Rohit Mishra of District Ballia) was called through letter dated 14.06.2018, and after selection, he was to produce his papers with regards to verification of his character and he was given an appointment letter vide order dated 18.07.2018. His Class 10th and 12th marksheets were sent to the concerned Board for verification but they were found to be forged. In the affidavit of self declaration given by the candidate it was mentioned that if there is any wrong fact found in future then he will be separated from the course/service. It is stated that the candidate was knowing that his marksheet is forged and that he has never passed Class 10th and 12th but still he has given a self declaration in the affidavit by annexing the said marksheet knowing that the same is forged document and the said forged documents have been produced for seeking appointment which is punishable under the Indian Penal Code and is a serious offences. The First Information Report has thus been lodged.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed annexure 4 to the affidavit of which the typed copy is annexed as annexure S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit 21.01.2022 and argued that SubInspector Rama Shankar has sent the letter to the Secretary of the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi which is dated 13.08.2019 for verification of the marksheet of Class 12th of the applicant wherein the Enrollment Number is 905222 by annexing photocopy of the same. It is argued that the said documents are genuine documents. While placing para 9 of the affidavit it is argued that the Secretary of the Board of Higher Education, Delhi has verified the certificate of the applicant on 31.06.2019. Annexure 5 to the affidavit being a letter of the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi has been placed before the Court.
It is further argued that the applicant neither prepared any marksheet nor has given any forged affidavit but as a matter of fact he had appeared and passed Class 10th and 12th in the year 2012 and 2014. It is argued that the applicant is having neat and clean antecedents as stated in para 21 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant. It is argued while placing para 5 of
the affidavit of compliance that no such letter dated 13.08.2019 has been issued by Sub-Inspector Rama Shankar. An enquiry to the said effect was conducted by the Circle Officer concerned in which Rama Shankar has denied issuing of any such letter. Learned counsel has placed the enqiury report of Circle Officer, Ballia dated 14.05.2022 addressed him to Superintendent of Police, Ballia in which it is stated that Sub-Inspector Rama Shankar has stated that he has neither issued any such letter and neither has signed on any letter. The said enquiry report was sent by the Superintendent of Police to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur vide his letter dated 14.05.2022. It is argued that the said letter dated 13.08.2019 as annexed as annexure 4 to the affidavit, is a fake document. It is neither present in the case diary nor has it ever been issued by the said person whose name is mentioned therein. It is further argued that the allegations in the First Information Report against the applicant are serious in nature. The applicant had produced forged and fake marksheet and sought employment in the police force on the basis of the same.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has placed his counter affidavit to the compliance affidavit of the State and has disputed the averments made therein which are to the effect that the said letter dated 13.08.2019 filed as annexure 4 to the affidavit is a fake document. Learned counsel has stated that even the said letter has been sent in the office of Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, Regional Office, Varanasi for verification of the document of the applicant.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the allegation in the First Information Report are that the applicant has tried to seek appointment in the police force on the basis of forged marksheet of Class 12th. A letter dated 13.08.2019 (annexure 4 to the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application and the true copy of which is annexure S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 21.01.2022) is being relied upon by the applicant to show that the Investigating Officer has sent his marksheet for verification. The State in affidavit of compliance has disputed the issuance of the said letter and the person allegedly signing the same has also denied his signature on it. The perusal of the said letter would go to show that the column of the letter number and the date is blank. Even the space for signature at its bottom is too less and there is some signature by its side below which a date i.e. 13.08.2019 is affixed. An enquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer regarding the genuineness of the said letter who came to a conclusion that the same is a fake document.
In these circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for interference.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected . Order Date :- 27.9.2022 M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.09.28 16:53:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the first anticipatory bail application is a fit case for interference given the serious allegations of forgery and fake documents.
Whether the reliance on an alleged verification letter by the Sub-Inspector is sufficient to justify approval of the application given the denial of its issuance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rohit Mihsra
State of U.P.
Samit Gopal
Mohammad Arif
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
