Bombay HC rejects anticipatory bail plea of Former MP Harinarayan Rajbhar for allegedly misusing Government's emblem to issue appointment letters

Bombay High Court: In the present case, an application for anticipatory bail was filed under Section 438 ¹ of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in a case registered with Mumbra Police Station against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 406 ², 420 ³, 467 ⁴, 468 ⁵, 471 ⁶, and 500 ⁷ read with Section 34 ⁸ of the Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly making appointment letters by using the letter head with the Central Government’s emblem, and inserting his signature on the Id-card which bears the Central Government’s emblem and name of Government of India.

A Single Judge Bench of Rajesh S. Patil, J., took note of the allegations against the applicant that he with his team, by using the Central Government’s emblem, using his letter head which had the emblem of the Central Government, issued id-cards and appointment letters on the letter head, had duped many persons including the complainant. The Court rejected the bail application and opined that to investigate the present matter; the applicant’s interrogation would be necessary.

Background

The applicant-Accused 5, was a former Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh and a former Member of Parliament and it was alleged that he prepared an appointment letter for the first informant as Chairman of MSME, Maharashtra, by misusing a letter head wherein the Government of India’s emblem was used and asked the first informant to join the post of Chairman in Maharashtra. Further, an Id-card showing the first informant as Chairman of MSME, Maharashtra was made, on which, the applicant’s signature was inserted, and it also had the Government’s emblem on it. The first informant on meeting one more victim, who filed a separate FIR for the bogus appointment letter and bogus Id-card issued, realized that he was cheated. Thus, a case was registered.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had barely studied till second standard in a vernacular medium and he had very limited knowledge of English Language. It was stated that the applicant was made a working Chairman of a company named MSME Export Promotion Council and when he realized that its letter head was misused, he immediately resigned from the said post. It was submitted that there was a huge delay in filing the FIR.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court in respect of the contention that there was a delay in filing of the FIR, opined that there were sufficient reasons for the first informant to lodge the FIR after some time as the first informant had stated that it was difficult for him to file a complaint against such powerful person as the applicant was a former Minister of Uttar Pradesh and a former Member of Parliament. But on realizing that this was a crime which was committed by the applicant and its intention was to cheat as fabricated Government documents were used, thus, he filed the complaint.

The Court noted that it was not a case where only one person had been cheated as there were many more victims, who were cheated by the applicant and in every crime, the applicant used a different team. Thus, to investigate the matter, the applicant’s interrogation would be necessary.

The Court, after considering the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR and the documents produced before this Court, rejected the present anticipatory bail application.

[Harinarayan Bhagirathi Rajbhar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1739, decided on 30-4-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Applicant: Adv. K H. Giri a/w Dhavan K. Giri, Pratik Yadav, Yashraj Vaswani, and Prachi Gupta for the Applicant.

For the Respondent: Adv. Rutuja A. Ambekar APP for the Respondent-State; Adv. Prashant Pandey a/w Dinesh Jadhwani, Ridhima Mangaonkar, Nikhil Sonal, Pramod Sharma i/b W3 Legal LLP for the Intervener.