AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 324 dated 19.06.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Rohtak Civil Lines, District Rohtak.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dismissing the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that convict Sunil son of Sewa Singh was undergoing imprisonment for 10 years in case FIR No. 9/09 u/s 376(2)(G), 120-B, 304 and 342 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Lakhan Majra and applied for parole on the plea that his mother was ill and was taking treatment from General Hospital, Rohtak as per medical record submitted by him. However, the application was filed by Jail Superintendent as he was not eligible for parole as per Section 4 (1) of Parole Rules, 2007. Thereafter, he filed Crl. Writ Petition No. 10188 of 2011 in this Court for parole for treatment of his mother Jagwanti wife of Sewa Singh by attaching medical treatment record of his mother Jagwanti. On the said application, inquiry was got conducted and it came during inquiry that Jagwanti had never taken treatment from General Hospital, Rohtak and the documents regarding her ailment were forged one. Hence, on the complaint of Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, the present case was registered.
During investigation, co-accused Jagwanti, mother of convict Sunil was joined in the investigation as per order of this Court. During interrogation, she suffered a statement that forged medical certificate of her was supplied to her by present petitioner-accused as she contacted him on the asking of her son convict Sunil and he after taking Rs. 5,800/- from her, had delivered her the alleged forged document which was produced by her in the criminal writ petition filed in this Court.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was having no concern with the alleged preparation of forged document and no reliance can be placed upon the alleged statement of co-accused Jagwanti made before the police. He has also contended that she has taken different stand before this Court in her bail application in which she stated that she was actually not well.
Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the State on the plea that in view of the statement of co-accused Jagwanti, custodial interrogation of present petitioner-accused is necessary to unearth the entire crime and only after interrogation of the present petitioner, it would become known regarding involvement of other persons in this racket of forging false medical record and false medical certificates in Civil Hospital, Rohtak.
There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the State. Statement of co-accused Jagwanti, at this stage, made before the police, is sufficient to interrogate the present petitioner to arrive at the truth and to unearth racket of preparing false medical records and false medical certificates. Hence, his custodial interrogation is necessary. It is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused.
Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner Om Parkash @ Om Pal is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.