(1.) IN course of hearing bail applications, it has come to light that it has become practice to get the affidavits sworn by a person as pairvikar, who is identified by the so called Authorised Clerks of the lawyer other than through whom the bail applications are filed.
(2.) RECENTLY , in the case of Damodar Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. No. 20787/05), which was filed through Sri Gauri Shankar, Advocate, the affidavit of the bail application was sworn by one Prem Kumar as Pairvikar and he was identified by one Anish Kumar Sinha, so called authorised clerk bearing registration No. 7253/ 05 to Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate. On query, Gauri Shankar stated that he does not know the said Anish Kumar Sinha. He stated that one Navin Kumar Sinha is attached with him as authorised clerk. Still the person who swear the affidavit was identified by the so called authorised clerk of Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate, and not through the registered clerk of the advocate through whom the bail application was filed.
(3.) IN the case of Dhananjay Sharma vs. The State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. No. 20927/05), the bail application has been filed through Sri Narendra Kumar, Advocate. In paragraph -9 it is claimed that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The affidavit has been sworn by one Jairam Mistry claiming to be the father and pairvikar of the petitioner. He has again not been identified by the registered clerk of the lawyer through whom the bail application is filed. He has been identified by one Prem Kumar, so called authorized clerk of Mr. Arjun Prasad, Advocate.. Most surprising thing is that in the cause title the name of the father of the petitioner is mentioned as Gaya Ram, whereas Jairam Mistry who has sworn the affidavit has claimed to be the father and pairvikar of the petitioner. Thus, apparently, the affidavit is false. On query made, learned counsel of the petitioner has not been able to produce the person who has sworn the affidavit nor the so called authorised clerk who has identified the said Jairam Mistry.