Allahabad High Court
Km. Priyanka Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 April, 2022
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?E-Court Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1596 of 2022 Applicant :- Km. Priyanka Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Km. Priyanka Singh, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 73 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Lotan, District Siddharth Nagar.
Previously the applicant had approached this Court seeking relief of anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 17862 of 2021 (Km. Priyanka Singh vs. State of U.P. and others), in which on 20.12.2021 the following order was passed :
"Sri Devottam Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State are present.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of this anticipatory bail application with liberty to approach the learned Sessions Court and apply for anticipatory bail in the light of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. & Another : (2020) 3 ADJ 575.
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty without any opinion on the merits of the case."
Subsequently the applicant approached the Sessions Judge by filing an Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1354 of 2021 which was rejected vide order dated 18.1.2022 and thus, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and no such offence as alleged has been committed by her. It is further argued that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, in district Siddharth Nagar on 20.5.2016, being fully eligible and qualified having required educational qualification including certificate of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). It is argued that appointment of the applicant was made by respondents' department after thorough scrutiny of educational qualification certificates and other testimonials of the applicant, for which several times they have called the applicant and other candidates before issuing appointment letters to selected candidates.
It is further argued that the Basic Education Department having its own forum to scrutinize educational qualifications up to Education Directorate, U.P. at Allahabad through their websites and other reliable cogent sources therefore no question arose for any mistake in scrutinizing the educational qualification of any candidate before giving the appointment letters for appointment as Assistant Teacher, for which from time to time recruitment process are to be done by respondents.
It is argued that Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Siddharth Nagar/opposite party no. 3 in pursuance of direction issued by the Basic Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar has lodged a first information report on 7.7.2021 against the applicant, being case crime no. 73/2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 368, 471 I.P.C. at Police Station Lotan, District Siddharth Nagar, alleging therein that the applicant has got her Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) certificate by fraudulent manner, therefore she has got her appointment as assistant teacher by submitting fake certificate of TET.
Learned counsel further argued that the applicant was initially appointed on 20.6.2016, before her appointment she has submitted her all educational as well as other certificates before the respondents' department, now about more than 5 years have passed, the said certificates of the applicant are not returned by department and on asking by the applicant, the authorities by one and another reason denied to return the certificates of applicant, under such circumstances, it is fully proved that the applicant has suffered some conspiracy by anyone of department.
It is argued that TET mark sheets and certificates are always uploaded on Internet, on submission of said certificate, the authorities of department always confirm said certificate from internet itself and on doing so they have given the joining letter to the applicant, therefore, no question arose for any fraud and manipulation on the part of applicant.
Learned State counsel opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there is allegation against her.
The Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as introduced in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 06.06.2019 reads as follows :--
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.--
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:--
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail:
Provided that where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.
(2) Where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, considers it expedient to issue an interim order to grant anticipatory bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall indicate therein the date, on which the application for grant of anticipatory bail shall be finally heard for passing an order thereon, as the Court may deem fit, and if the Court passes any order granting anticipatory bail, such order shall include inter alia the following conditions, namely:--
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and
(iv) such other conditions as may be imposed under sub - section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.
Explanation : The final order made on an application for direction under sub - section (1); shall not be construed as an interlocutory order for the purpose of this Code.
(3) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub - section (l), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court.
(4) On the date indicated in the interim order under sub - section (2), the Court shall hear the Public Prosecutor and the applicant and after due consideration of their contentions, it may either confirm, modify or cancel the interim order.
(5) The High Court or the Court of Session, as the case may be, shall finally dispose of an application for grant of anticipatory bail under sub-section (l), within thirty days of the date of such application.
(6) Provisions of this section shall not be applicable,--
(a) to the offences arising out of, --
(i) the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967;
(ii) the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985;
(iii) the Official Secrets Act, 1923;
(iv) the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
(b) in the offences, in which death sentence can be awarded.
(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session."
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the present matter relates to seeking employment on the basis of forged marks sheet and certificate of TET. Argument of learned counsel for the applicant is based on his assumptions that the marks sheet and the certificates are uploaded on the internet and the authorities always confirm them and then proceed and issue documents.
On a pointed query as to whether any rules prescribes for the said procedure, learned counsel for the applicant was unable to show the same. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against her.
Looking to facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 1.4.2022/E-court.
Naresh