R K Sharma v. State (NCT Of Delhi)

$~10 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 2753/2015 R K SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through :Mr. Sanjay Khanna and Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Advs.

with petitioner in person.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Mr.

Tarang Srivastava, APP with Inspector R.K. Meena, P.S. Rajinder Nagar for State Mr.

Hitendra Kumar, Adv.

for complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 28.11.2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was working as Head Clerk in Vidya Bhawan Girls Senior Secondary School, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi - 110060 and has retired from service on 30th November, 2009. One Ms. Kalselvi Devi was appointed as Water Woman on 21st June, 2008 by the school. Selection was done by the Staff Selection Committee of the school and was approved by the Managing Committee. Petitioner's job was only to process the documents and place it before the Managing Committee. Petitioner has not forged any document. Petitioner has cooperated in the investigation and given his specimen signatures. The caste certificate

was produced by Kalselvi Devi and petitioner has no relation with Kalselvi Devi. It is prayed that petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned APP has contended that Kalselvi Devi did not appear in the interview nor was selected by the Staff Selection Committee. Her name was interpolated by the petitioner. Mother of Kalselvi Devi was working as maid servant with the petitioner.

He got her appointed as a Water Woman by interpolating the school records, inasmuch as by adding the name of Kalselvi Devi at the bottom of the list, that is, at serial no. 6, in order to benefit her and by taking `3 lacs from her. It is further submitted that the school certificate as well as caste certificate of Kalselvi Devi was forged by the petitioner. However, it has not been disputed that petitioner has cooperated in investigation and his specimen signatures have already been taken. It is submitted that same have been sent to FSL and the report is awaited. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not required for investigation.

He has already been protected from his arrest vide order dated 21st December, 2015 and the said interim order is still continuing. Keeping in mind the totality of circumstances, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioner be released on anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the

Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO concerned. Bail application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti. A.K. PATHAK, J.

NOVEMBER 28, 2016 rb