Manipur High Court
Md. Habibullah @ Hasib vs Officer-In-Charge on 18 March, 2021
Page 1 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
AB No.46 of 2020
Md. Habibullah @ Hasib
.....Petitioner/s
-Versus-
Officer-in-Charge, Lilong Police Station
.....Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
For the petitioners : Th. Tolpishak, Adv.
For the respondents : S. Nepolean, GA
Date of hearing : 06.01.2021
Date of Judgment & Order : 18.03.2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
This application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438
Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR
No.105(11)2020 on the file of Lilong Police Station.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.11.2020, one Beikul Singh,
AB No.46 of 2020
SDC, Lilong, published his office memorandum vide No.2/SDC/L/CERT/88pt
as whereas it has been detected by the office while visiting the website
https://www/manipuruniv.ac.in// of Manipur University, Chanchipur, Imphal
West that one Km Khullakpam Sajida, daughter of late Nihamuddin, who is a
resident of Lilong Haoreibi Makha Leikai has been holding and issuing a
fake/forged Income and Assets Certificate purporting to be produced by the
accused under the category of Economically Weaker Sections being No.2037
dated 23.10.2020 which is allegedly to have been issued by the SDC using
photo-shop software technology behind the back and knowledge of the office
of the SDC.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that the said Sajida has used the said
fake/forged certificate in question for admission purpose into the Manipur
University as if the same was issued by the office of the SDC as genuine one.
The office of the SDC clarified that the certificate in question is not related to
the office of the SDC in terms of any manner also not having the power and
purview to issue such type of illegal certificate to any point of time. Further, the
office issued a memorandum to the effect that the said certificate said to have
been issued has neither related nor recorded at the office and further clarified
that the alleged office number reflected in the said certificate is also fictitious
one. Accordingly, the Manipur University, Canchipur can take appropriate
action for using such fake certificate for personal gain referring to the office
memorandum issued by the SDC. Thereafter, on 13.11.2020, one Md.S.Daulat
Khan, SDC, Lilong forwarded the above said office memorandum to the Lilong
AB No.46 of 2020
Police Station for taking action against the commission of forgery vide letter
dated 13.11.2020.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in this case and that he is innocent to the charges
levelled against him. In fact, the petitioner has never committed the said crime
alleged by the prosecution. He would submit that the petitioner is running a
DTP centre under the name and style of MH Computer Works at Lilong Bazar
Alia Lamkhai and he is a family man living with his wife and three minor
children and that he is the sole bread winner of his family.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that earlier the petitioner and one
Md. Naskar filed pre-arrest bail application before the learned Sessions Judge,
Thoubal and by an order dated 23.11.2020, the learned Sessions Judge
granted interim bail to them. However, to the utmost shock and surprise of the
petitioner, by an order dated 18.12.2020, the learned Sessions Judge, vacated
the interim bail in respect of the petitioner's case.
6. The learned counsel next submitted that the petitioner extended his full
co-operation in the investigation of the said case thereby appearing before the
investigating officer and the investigating officer had also examined and
recorded his statement.
7. The learned counsel then submitted that during the long spanning
career of the petitioner, he has not committed any criminal act or offence or
with any malicious or criminal intention and if he is arrested, there is every
AB No.46 of 2020
possibility that he would be placed under the suspicious scrutiny of every
person and also by the members of his own society which cannot be regained
back with time or money. Arguing so, the learned counsel for the petitioner
prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
investigation reveals that the accused persons had committed the offence by
conspiring each other and the said forged Income and Assets Certificate is still
kept concealing in the custody of the accused Md. Nasker and that the seals
which were used in the commission of the crime is also still concealing in the
custody of the present petitioner with an intend to dissuade themselves from
the liability of the case. He would submit that contradicting with each other, the
accused persons have given their statements in this case and therefore, the
custodial interrogation of the petitioner and other accused are highly required
so as to enable to recover and seize the original forged Income and Assets
Certificate and seals from their possession.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that as
disclosed by the accused Md. Arish Khan and as the suspicious existed, the
computer centre run by the petitioner was raided on 14.11.2020 and seized
many articles. Though the investigating officer during investigation directed the
accused Sajida and Arish Khan to produce the original copy of the Income and
Assets Certificate in order to seize the same, they have failed to produce the
same. Further, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the release of the co-
accused on bail.
AB No.46 of 2020
10. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused
the materials available on record.
11. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not committed any offence
and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, it is stated that on the
date of incident, the accused Md. Arish Khan made a call to the accused Md.
Naskar from his DTP centre and the said Arish Khan requested him to talk with
Md. Naskar. Thereafter, the said Md. Naskar requested him that Arish Khan is
well known to him and to make a scan copy of the alleged certificate. As
requested by one of his regular customer, he acceded to his request in good
faith without thinking of any adverse consequences. However, later on he
came to learnt that a photocopy of the alleged scan certificate was used by the
accused Sajida at the time of her admission at Manipur University. In fact, the
accused Sajida is a stranger to the petitioner whereas Arish Khan is unknown
to the petitioner though he met him at his DTP centre for the first time on the
said day. Therefore, there is no question of conspiracy amongst them and no
agreement was made between them to do the alleged offence at any point of
time.
12. It appears that earlier, the petitioner and accused Md. Naskar
approached the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal, by filing Criminal
Miscellaneous (AB) Case No.65 of 2020 for granting anticipatory bail in
connection with the aforesaid FIR. The learned Sessions Judge, after
considering the rival submissions, by the order dated 18.12.2020, disposed of
AB No.46 of 2020
the application by observing as under:
"Considering all these, the interim bail granted to the
accused/petitioner No.1 Md. Basker vide order dated 23.11.2020
is hereby made absolute on the same condition. And in respect of
accused/petitioner No.2, Md. Habibullah @ Habib, the prayer for
seeking anticipatory bail is rejected and the interim order passed
on 23.11.2020 stands vacated.
Accordingly, this Cril. Misc. (AB) case is disposed of."
13. The learned Sessions Judge is also of the view that the petitioner had
prepared the forged Income and Assets Certificate standing in the name of
Sajida along with the unfiled Income and Assets Certificate format which was
brought by the accused Md. Arish Khan and the same was handed over to Md.
Arish Khan. To controvert the same, the petitioner has not produced any
material before this Court.
14. It is to be noted that prima facie the investigation reveals that the
accused person had committed the offence by conspiring each other and the
said original forged Income and Assets Certificate and the seals which were
used in the commission of the crime is also still concealing in the custody of
the petitioner with an intend to dissuade themselves from the liability of the
case.
15. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
there are lot of contradictions in the statements given by the accused persons
and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much
AB No.46 of 2020
essential so as to enable the investigating officer to recover and seize the
original forged Income and Assets Certificate and seals from his possession
for smooth investigation of the case. This Court finds some merits in the
argument advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
16. Since the investigation is on and four accused persons are concealing
the fact of the case by diverting the charge with each other so as to dissuade
themselves from the liability of the case and the real fact of the case is still
unknown and the forged Income and Assets Certificate and the seals which
were used in the commission of the crime is also still unrecovered, this Court
finds that there is no ground for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner
herein and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required in
order to recover and seize the original forged Income and Assets Certificate
and seals.
17. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the view that there is no point and ground at this stage to grant anticipatory bail
to the petitioner and therefore, the anticipatory bail petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Yumkh Digitally signed
by Yumkham
- Larson
am Rother
Date: 2021.03.19
Rother 13:01:12 +05'30'
AB No.46 of 2020
