SUMITRA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner submitted genuine educational testimonial/ Transfer Certificate for contesting the Sarpanch election in the year 2015. He contends that the petitioner Sumitra and Punni are one and the same person. He submits that the discrepancy, if any, in relation to the date of birth entered in the school from where the petitioner passed Class -V is owing to inadvertance. Thus, he submits that the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

(3.) Per contra learned P.P. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and urged that in the case at hand, the very identity of the petitioner is in doubt. He drew Court's attention to the two Transfer Certificates as well as the affidavit of Makan Singh, father of the present petitioner and urged that on going through the documents it is evident that the petitioner is not the daughter of Makan Singh and that she has created forged documents and put up a fraudulent identity for contesting the election.