Kuldeep Singh v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 04.07.2024 Kuldeep Singh .... Petitioner versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CRM-M-65526-2023 Rohtash .... Petitioner versus State of Haryana .... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Ashish Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-3651-2024.

Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-65526-2023.

Ms. Trishanjli Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of above-said two petitions as facts of both the cases are similar. Brief facts of the case are taken from CRM-M3651-2024. 2.

Instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.599/600 dated 11.11.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC registered at Police Station Hodal District Palwal.

-23.

Vide order dated 25.01.2024, the petitioner was asked to join investigation by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the following terms: "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the Assistant Director, State Council of Vocational Training, Aliganj, Lucknow in its letter dated 31.07.2023 has categorically stated that the roll number and name of candidate mentioned in the marksheet which includes that of petitioner were matching and the records were available in the State Council.

Notice of motion for 01.02.2024.

The petitioner will join investigation before the Investigating Officer as and when called. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to interim bail, till the next date of hearing, on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioner is also directed to abide by all the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the petitioner to place on record the aforesaid letter dated 31.07.2023."

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had complied with the aforesaid order and also placed letter dated 31.07.2023 vide CRM-6550-2024.

5.

Per contra, learned State counsel while drawing the attention of this Court to letter dated 31.07.2023 (Annexure A-1) submits that it has been clearly stated therein that due to difference in

-3the name of the Institute and Roll Number, verification of petitioner's records was not possible, which supports the allegations in the FIR that the petitioner had submitted a fake ITI Certificate and bogus application for procuring a job in DHBVNL. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to unearth the truth. 6.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record.

7.

There are grave allegations against the petitioner(s) of playing a fraud upon the State. During investigation, when verification of the original education certificates purported to have been issued by Government Vocational Institute, Bulandshahar, UP in the name of the petitioner(s) was carried out, it was uncovered that the said certificate had neither been issued by the said Institute nor had the petitioner(s) ever been enrolled as a student with the Institute, in any Electrical course for the year 2007-09.

8.

During the hearing of this petition, petitioner Kuldeep Singh through his counsel had asserted before the Coordinate Bench that all his educational certificates were genuine as Assistant Director, State Council of Vocational Training, Aliganj, Lucknow vide letter dated 31.07.2023 had categorically stated that the roll number and name of candidate mentioned in the marksheet, including that of petitioner had duly matched. However, the said statement stands belied from the observations in the letter pointed out by the learned State counsel wherein it finds mentioned that due to the discrepancy between

-4Institute and Roll Number of the petitioner, his record could not be verified. Even qua petitioner Rohtash, verification of his records etc. could not take place for the same reasons. It is thus, evident that the petitioner(s) had misled this Court by concealing material information as well as cleverly twisting the facts on record. 9.

In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to extend the extra-ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s). Accordingly, the present petition(s) stands dismissed.

04.07.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No