Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Petitioner had prayed for anticipatory bail in FIR registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code before a Single Judge Bench of Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.

Facts of the case are that petitioner had executed a sale deed and sold a house of the complainant on the basis of alleged forged Special Power of Attorney of the complainant. Later, petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail. Whereas complainant submitted that huge amount was transferred in the account of the petitioner. Petitioner had not accounted for the same and had mis-utilized. On request of the petitioner, matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the High Court which was contested by the complainant by stating that petitioner was not inclined to any amicable settlement pertaining to the FIR. The state opposed grant of bail to petitioner alleging him of committing of a serious offence.

The High Court was of the view that petitioner had forged and fabricated power of attorney related to the property of the complainant. The Court considered the allegations on the petitioner to be of serious offence. Therefore, this petition for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed. [Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab,2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1843, decided on 21-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Single Judge Bench comprising of B. Amit Sthalekar, J., addressed a writ petition seeking the quashing of order in which the contractual services of the petitioner were terminated.

The petitioner was an instructor i.e. a Shiksha Mitra. She was paid an honorarium of Rs. 6000/- per month, according to an application that the petitioner had submitted she was an intermediate pass. It has been stated by the petitioner that she was appointed as a Shiksha Mitra and completed her training in the Primary School, Dhram Vikas Kshetra Arawn, district Firozabad. Further, it has been stated that few individuals had some grudges against her complained before the authorities about her certificates being forged and fabricated.  The enquiry in this regard was held in which it was established that the certificate of Anaupcharik Shiksha Anudeshak was a forged and fabricated one, on that note the services of the petitioner were terminated by the District Magistrate.

The Hon’ble High Court, by focussing on the point whether the certificates of the petitioner were forged and fabricated or not and recording the facts of the case, where it has been stated by the Principal, Prathmik Vidyalaya that he does not even recognize the petitioner and the signatures on the alleged certificate issued are absolutely forged. Therefore, the said certificate clearly is a forged one and the impugned order does not contain any illegality or infirmity in it, which leaves the petition being dismissed. [Neeraj Kumari v. State of U.P; 2018 SCC OnLine All 549; dated 11-05-2018]