SURENDRA KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the counsel. This is the bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., apprehending arrest in Crime No. 533/2003, registered at Police Station; Mahasamund, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., for releasing him on anticipatory bail before arrest.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund, reported the matter to the City Kotwali Police Station, Mahasa-mund, that in Criminal Case No. 293/2002 (State v. Shanker and another) bail order was passed and in pursuance of that order accused Shanker Behalia & Deva Behalia were required to furnish bail bonds in order to obtain the release order by the Court. One person namely, Gulal stood surety for the aforesaid two accused persons and the surety bond was submitted before the Court and the photograph of Gulal was also affixed on the affidavit. Present accused/applicant Surendra Kumar Sahu who is a practicing Advocate, identified Gulal as Mayaram, whereas, in fact the person who stood surety was Mayarams son Gulal. After grant of bail when the accused persons did not appear before the Court, their bail bonds were forfeited and notice under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. for recovery of the surety amount was issued, then this fact came to the notice of the Court and the Court initiated proceedings and lodged the report. The Court reached to the conclusion that by identifying a wrong person and filing a false affidavit impersonating Mayaram, constitutes the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the case is registered and the matter is under investigation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appli-cant submits that the accused/applicant is a practicing Advocate and as per the prevailing practice in the Courts, the Advocates are sometimes, under the co-mpelling circumstances, per force, when no other person is available as a regular practice without verifying the surety they have to identify the surety believing the statement of the concerned person, the petitioner performed his duty without any intention to commit crime. In that process the accused/applicant also became a victim of the system and in the circumstances, the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. should be extended.