SUMER NATH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these four petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail arise out of the same F.I.R, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of these application are that F.I.R No.3 of 2002 dated 24.9.2002 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 472, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(i) B & D and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ahs been registered against the petitioners/ accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) and another in Police Station, Anti Corruption Zone, Bilaspur. The allegations against the accused and their co -accused Meena Soni are that co -accused Meena Soni has studied up to 7th or 8th standard. However, on production of a forged matriculation certificate she secured a job in electricity Department as a Clerk. For securing the fake matriculation certificate she procured the original certificate of one Meena Soni (since deceased) daughter of Hans Raj in collusion with Satish Kumar brother of the deceased and en the basis thereof procured duplicate fake certificate under reference after hatching conspiracy is dated 22.9.1399 which has been prepared by accused Nek Kam, checked by accused Rajeev Mahajan and Het Ram Sharma and has been signed by accused Sumer Nath Sharma. While preparing the records about the issue of fake certificate parentage of accused Meena has been changed. The factual position found during investigation is that accused Meena failed in 8th class in the year 198C and thereafter she left the School. To connect her with the certificate of the deceased she filed false application and thus the accused and co -accused pursuant to a conspiracy prepared a fake certificate and forged the official records. Investigation in the matter is still on. Accused Meena had been arrested on 17.7.2003 and was released en bail by the Special Judge, Bilaspur on 19,7.2003. The accused persons apprehending their arrest on the case have moved the present applications for their release on anticipatory bail on the grounds that they have been arrayed as accused after one year whereas they have not committed any offence and their formal arrest is in no way required.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the accused persons and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/ State and have also gone through the police report and the investigation records.