SURENDRA KARSHANDAS AMLANI - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR YOGESH LAKHANI, SR. COUNSEL with MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA for Applicant(s) : 1, MR HL JANI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1, ========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 20/01/2012 C.A.V.ORDER
1. This Application has been preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with the FIR being CR No.I-54 of 2011 registered with Kirti Mandir Police Station, Porbandar for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Mr.Yogesh Lakhani, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Pravin Gondalia, for the applicant. He has submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. It is submitted that the complaint is filed by one Lakhmanbhai on 11.8.2011 alleging therein that the applicant by relying upon false Birth Certificate applied for the post of District Government Pleader and got appointed as District Government Pleader. In this connection, investigation is carried out. He has submitted that from the papers of charge-sheet no prima-facie case is made out against the present applicant. He has read provisions of Sections 409, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted that present applicant joined the office of the District Government Pleader in the year 2003 and has served for eight years as such and that the applicant's career is unblemished. He has submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that present applicant has committed any wrong during his tenure. He has read the date of the PAN-card and birth certificate and submitted that Income-tax department has issued PAN-card and as per that document birth date is confirmed. He has further submitted that the present complainant is an accused of one murder case and the present applicant opposed the said case vehemently in the Court and therefore to take revenge the present complaint is filed by the complainant. He has further submitted that in this case charge-sheet is filed and present applicant is in jail for the last four months. He has submitted that present applicant is a member of Bar Council for the last thirty five years. He has read birth certificate issued by the Panchayat and submitted that date of birth is shown as 7.12.1957. He has submitted that from the school leaving certificate it is prima-facie established that present applicant has not committed any wrong. Mr.Lakhani has submitted that prosecution has shown birth date of present applicant as 17.12.1948. He has read the contents of the school leaving certificate and submitted that date of birth shown as 17.12.1948 is of applicant's sister and in that document gender is also shown as 'female' child. He has submitted that his actual birth date is shown by him and even it is not case of the prosecution that he has misused and forged that document. He has submitted that Panchayat record shows real date of birth. He has read the provisions of Section 465 of the IPC and submitted that prosecution has failed to show that who has forged the said document and that document is created by whom. He has prayed for release of the applicant on regular bail.
3. Heard Mr. H.L.Jani, learned APP for the respondent State. Mr.Jani read the documents from the police papers and submitted that in the register no entry is made. He has also read certificate of Talati, Khapat Gram Panchayat and submitted that Sarpanch has expired before some years. He has read the contents of the documents of Bar Council and submitted that it is a part of charge-sheet and the documents which are produced on record show that being a District Government Pleader present applicant has committed the said offence as alleged in the complaint. He has opposed this bail application vehemently and submitted that present applicant is not required to be enlarged on bail.
4. Mr.Lakhani in reply to submissions of Mr.Jani read the contents of application which was prepared and made by the present applicant for the post of District Government Pleader to the Collector and the said documents are attached with the application and there was no malafide intention on the part of the present applicant to commit the said offence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and in great detail. I have also gone through the complaint, police papers, charge-sheet etc. The documentary evidence produced on record shows that present applicant has not cited his original birth certificate. The date of birth which is cited by him is not supported by the contents of the documents. Mr.Jani, learned APP has read letter of the Bar Council of Gujarat dated 3.8.2011. In the said letter it is stated that enrolment number of the petitioner is No.G/513/1977 dated 2.9.1977 wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 7.12.1948. In support of that letter a copy of the application for enrolment is produced on record, wherein at column No.2 birthdate of the petitioner is shown as 7.12.1948. Prima-facie it appears that with the help of the forged document present applicant has got the post of the District Government Pleader. It is required to be noted that being a District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor of the District a person like present applicant has committed such type of grave offence which may send wrong signals in society. From perusal of the above documentary evidence prima-facie it is established that present applicant has committed serious offence. The applicant has no case for bail in connection with the suspected documents produced on record.
6. It is required to be noted that at the time of hearing of bail application, the Court is required to see whether there is prima facie involvement of the accused in commission of offence or not. Looking to the documentary evidence, police papers, etc., produced before me, it is clearly established that the applicant is involved in the offence alleged against him.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that prima-facie the applicant is involved in the offence in question which is serious in nature. In the result, this application deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Z.
K. SAIYED, J) kks Top