Wahid Ahmed Qureshi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1257 of 2016 • Wahid Ahmed Qureshi S/o Late Ajij Ahmat Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Nagar Panchayat Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Mrs. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ]Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 09-03-2017

1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 231 of 2016 registered at Police Station Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 484, 34 of IPC and Section 66 of the I.T. Act., the applicant has preferred the bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

2.

As per case of the prosecution, the applicant applied for caste certificate of his three daughters and approached one Ricky Das Vaishnav, who on the basis of same ID number, issued three caste certificates to Ku. Zeba Parveen, Ku. Ruhi Parveen and Ku. Fiza Parveen. Subsequently, it revealed that all three caste certificates which were issued on the same ID number, were found to be forged and thereby the aforesaid offence was committed. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant himself after recovery of the fact that three caste

certificates were issued on the same ID number which were found to be forged, has made a report on the basis of which SDM had lodged the report to proceed the matter further on 19-2-2016. He would further submit that the applicant has not committed any offence, therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances, the applicant may be extended the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C..

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and documents.

6.

Perusal of the documents would show that the applicant himself made a report after recovery of the fact that three caste certificates which were issued on the same ID number were found to be forged.

7.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations leveled against the applicant and further considering the fact that the applicant himself made a report after recovery of the fact that the caste certificates issued on the same ID number were found to be forged and the role played by the applicant, I am of the considered opinion, prima facie, that it is a fit case where benefit of Section 438 can be extended to the applicant.

8.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction

of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions:

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required. (ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;

(iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju