PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Cr.P.C) by one Parveen Kumar seeks his pre-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 314 dated 20.8.2003 registered under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B, IPC at Police Station, Sector, 11, Chandigarh. His prayer has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 13.9.2003 particularly on the ground that he appeared in the H.C.S. (Executive) examination and organised an impersonator to write the examination paper for him and his custodial interrogation was necessary.

(2.) The allegations in the First Information Report disclosed that on 20.8.2003, the petitioner was to appear for his H.C.S. (Executive) examination held by the Haryana Public Service Commission at Lajpat Rai Bhawan, 4th Floor, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh. He was to take the paper of English Compulsory from 9.30 to 12.30 p.m. for H.C.S. (Executive) Branch, Main Examination, 2003. One Dheeraj Kumar son of Gauri Shanker was found to be impersonating the petitioner and he disclosed the reason for impersonating. According to Dheeraj Kumar the petitioner had promised to pay some money in consideration of impersonating and writing the English paper for him. The impersonator was handed over to the police.

(3.) Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has illegally rejected his prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail by assuming the ground that the investigating agency is to obtain his specimen signatures/handwriting. According to the learned Counsel, it cannot constitute the basis for deciding pre-arrest bail to the petitioner because it has been held by the Supreme Court that no one can be forced to give his specimen handwriting because it would be self-incriminatory as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of UttarPradesh v. Ram Babu Misra.