Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Court No. - 29 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3148 of 2023 Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Pandey,Indrapal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. The accused-applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 224 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Sadarpur, District-Sitapur. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had a hot talk with the Block Education Officer concerned, so he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. There is no one to look after his family except the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2022, hence, the prayer is made accordingly. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submitted that there is allegation of securing the job of assistant teacher in Basic Education Department by the applicant on the basis of forged documents. The inquiry was set up against the applicant and during inquiry of STF and education department, the applicant was terminated from his services and after receiving the inquiry report of STF against the applicant, the present FIR was lodged. The report of STF is appended with the case diary. The allegation against the applicant is of securing a job of assistant teacher by placing forged mark-sheet before the authorities concerned. In the inquiry report of STF also, the mark-sheet of TET placed by the applicant before the authorities concerned was found forged though it is claimed that this forged mark-sheet was not prepared by the applicant but it is admitted fact that by using this alleged forged mark-sheet as a genuine document the applicant secured a job of assistant teacher and worked on that post from 2016 to 2021 till he was terminated from his services. Perusing the record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case of bail. The bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected. However, trial court is directed to expedite the hearing of the trial of the applicant and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before that court. Order Date :- 6.12.2023 Gss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench