Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shyam Singh vs . State on 4 November, 2015
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1.
CrlMB No.7237/2015
Shyam Singh vs. State
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.7237/2015
Shyam Singh. VS. State of Rajasthan.
Date of Order: 4/11/2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr. Mahesh Bora, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nishant Bora and Mr. Birbal Saran, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor.
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, for the complainant.
Mr. Shravan Das, C.I., Nokha, I.O. present in person.
.....
This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.66/2015, Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner for the offences under Section 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
Facts in brief are that an FIR came to be filed by the complainant Richhpal at the Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner on 04.02.2015 with the allegation that the petitioner contested the election of Sarpanch held in the Panchayat Samiti Nokha in the year 2015 by using fraudulent means. He filed the nomination papers in January, 2015 and annexed the educational testimonials with the nomination papers wherein, his date of birth was reflected as 10.08.1992. The complainant alleged that as a 2. CrlMB No.7237/2015 Shyam Singh vs. State matter of fact, Shyam Singh's correct date of birth was 10.08.1994. Deliberately, with the intention of showing himself to be above 21 years of age, Shyam Singh gave a wrong declaration of date of birth in the nomination papers and also submitted forged educational testimonials in support of his date of birth.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner approached the Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Bikaner by way of an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. Such bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Bikaner by order dated 28.07.2015 upon which, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant bail application seeking pre-arrest bail.
Shri Mahesh Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that change in date of birth of the petitioner was effected by following due process of law way back in the year 2011. Thus, he contends that the allegation levelled by the complainant that the petitioner managed to have his date of birth altered by using fraudulent means for contesting the elections held in the year 2015 is far fetched and unbelievable. He submitted that numerous contemporaneous documents viz. the Driving Licence, LIC Policy, Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Voter I.D. Card of the 3. CrlMB No.7237/2015 Shyam Singh vs. State petitioner were prepared long before the elections of 2015 and in all these documents, the petitioner's date of birth is mentioned as 10.08.1992. Learned counsel thus urged that even if it is assumed that the date of birth of the petitioner was irregularly or illegally altered in the school record then too, prima facie the offences under Section 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of IPC are not made out. He thus prays that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the investigating officer, and the learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. It was urged that the petitioner's brother Megh Singh was earlier the Sarpanch in this very Panchayat. He was convicted for a serious offence and thus, stood disqualified from contesting the future elections. The petitioner was falling short in age by a few years and thus, was not eligible to contest the future elections. In this background, the petitioner and his family members designed a scheme to fraudulently increase his age so as to project him to be above 21 years of age by 2015 so that he could contest the forthcoming elections. They contend that in the record of the various schools where the petitioner studied prior to the year 2010, his date of birth is mentioned as 10.08.1994 and thus, it is evident 4. CrlMB No.7237/2015 Shyam Singh vs. State that the alteration in date of birth was deliberately and fraudulently carried out in order to ensure that the petitioner acquired eligibility for contesting the forthcoming elections. They thus urge that the petitioner should not be released on anticipatory bail.
I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the case diary.
The investigating officer, during investigation, has arrived at a finding that the fraudulent alteration in the date of birth was brought around the year 2011. The motive or intention of making such alteration is not very clear from the material collected during investigation thus far. Though the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the alteration was made in order to ensure that the petitioner could contest the future elections but the said submission is not substantiated by the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's brother Megh Singh was a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and thus there is no reason as to why, the petitioner would be prepared for contesting the future elections by forging documents regarding his age.
Be that as it may, at this stage, it would be premature to hold whether or not the alteration in date of birth of the petitioner in the school record was made with an intention 5. CrlMB No.7237/2015 Shyam Singh vs. State to cheat or to gain valuable security or to cause loss to anybody. Whether or not the documents prepared by the petitioner and his relatives whereby, the date of birth was altered in the school would be covered by the offences alleged in the FIR would be dependent on the conclusion of investigation and trial, if any. Thus any comments by this Court on this issue is bound to prejudice the case. However, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner had already appeared before the investigating officer and has participated in investigation. All the relevant documents have been collected by the investigating officer. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that custodial investigation of the petitioner in this case is not necessary.
As a consequence of the above discussion, the anticipatory bail application deserves to be and is hereby allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Shyam Singh S/o Ugam Singh in connection with the FIR No.66/2015, Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner, he shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/ S.H.O. on the following conditions :-
(i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;6. CrlMB No.7237/2015
(ii). that the petitioner 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and
(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/tikam daiya/