Delhi High Court
Anuj Bhushan vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 29 September, 2016
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : SEPTEMBER 29, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 1034/2016
ANUJ BHUSHAN
..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Anwesh Madhukar, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP.
Mr.Vishwa Bhushan Arya, Advocate
with Ms.Vandana Gupta, Advocate,
for the complainant.
Insp.R.K.Meena, PS Rajinder Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
in case FIR No.160/2016 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered at
Police Station Rajender Nagar. Status report is on record. I have heard the
learned counsel for the parties including the counsel for the complainant and
have examined the record.
2. Allegations against the petitioner are that he forged and
fabricated a degree of B.Com (Pass) of Delhi University and on its basis
pursued higher education from Symbiosis Institute, Pune, Maharashtra; he
also succeeded in getting employment in various prestigious private firms.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the original
'degree' has since been misplaced by the petitioner. Self-attested photocopy
of the original degree has been given to the Investigating Agency. He further
urged that original Transcript of Marks dated 5.3.2015 from University of
Delhi has also been made available by him to the Investigating Agency. The
present FIR has been lodged on the complainant of Vandana Gupta with
whom he has property dispute. She has no locus standi to lodge any such
complaint to settle private score. The petitioner has since joined the
investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned APP,
assisted by the complainant's counsel, urged that the petitioner has not
deliberately produced the original 'degree'. As per the information received
from the concerned authorities under Right to Information Act, the 'degree'
in question was never issued and has been forged and fabricated.
4. The petitioner has not furnished original 'degree' so far. Only
self-attested photocopy of the 'degree' has been given to the investigating
agency. The explanation offered by the petitioner for not providing the
original 'degree', prima facie, does not appeal to mind. The petitioner never
lodged any complaint with the police regarding loss of the said original
degree at the time of shifting of the residence. He did not make sincere
efforts to get its duplicate copy any time. It is not explained as to when and
from where, photocopy which has been self-attested was prepared from the
original one. It has come on record that the petitioner had got the PG
diploma from Symbiosis Centre for Distance Learning. He was directed by
the said institute to furnish the original 'degree'. The petitioner did not
furnish the required documents sought by the said institute. The Post
Graduate Diploma and Marks Sheet issued to him on completion of PGDBA
programme was annulled and canceled on the ground of forgery as reflected
in the letter dated SCDL/RTI/2016/1417 dated 18.01.2016 given to the
present petitioner. The petitioner did not challenge the said annulment.
5. Status report reveals that after receipt of the complaint, in the
correspondence made with the Delhi University, it was informed that the
petitioner was enrolled as student but he did not appear in the examination.
6. 'Transcript of marks' was also sent to the Delhi University for
verification and in the report, it has been clearly mentioned that "Anuj
Bhushan against Roll No.124933 does not exist in the year 1999 as
mentioned in the transcript Ref.No.TRCS/2014/4413-A dated 5.3.2015".
7. Considering the gravity of the offence and serious allegations
against the petitioner regarding forging degree and Transcript of Marks, I
find no sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail.
8. The bail application is dismissed.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 29, 2016
sa
