LAWS(HPH)-2011-8-128

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. SHIVENDER BATISH

Decided On August 16, 2011
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Appellant
V/S
Shivender Batish Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MMO Nos. 127, 128, 129 and 130 of 2011 which have arisen on account of suo motu action taken by this Court against the orders dated 11.7.2011, 13.7.2011 and 18.7.2011 passed by Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Shimla on the bail applications No.78 -S/22 of 2011, 83 -S/22 of 2011, 84 -S/22 of 2011 and 88 -S/22 of 2011 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. releasing Shivender Batish, Dinesh Kapoor, Duni Chand Yadav and Kuldeep Rao on bail in FIR No. 60 of 2011 registered on 24.5.2011 at Police Station East, Shimla under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120 -B IPC.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that a secret information was received at the Police Station on 24.4.2011 that a forged copy of judgment dated 18.12.2010 of the High Court has been prepared in Combined Pre -Medical Test (CPMT) case arising out of FIR No. 140 of 2006 registered on 28.7.2006 at Police Station, Boileauganj. In the forged copy of judgment, there is mention of Cr.MMO No. 179 of 2010 titled as Ritika Kapoor and others vs. State of H.P. and others. This copy of judgment was under consideration in the Secretariat for giving benefit of service to accused Kuldeep Rao, Executive Engineer, HPPWD. On receipt of this information, Cr.MMO No. 179 of 2010 was checked on the web site of the High Court, the message displayed was ˜either judgment not uploaded or case does not exist.

(3.) The case appeared to be a preparation of forged document for obtaining undue benefit, hence FIR No. 60 dated 24.5.2011 was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The status report of the case has been filed in Cr.MMO No. 127 of 2011 and record perused. It has been stated that it has come during investigation that in the High Court Cr.MMO No. 179 of 2010 is registered in the name of Gian Chand Sood vs. Shivani whereas no Cr.MMO No. 179 of 2010 titled as Ritika and others vs. State of H.P. and others has been registered and decided by the High Court.