Full Judgment
S.K. Agarwal, J.
1. By this petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 166/2002 under Sections 420/468/471, IPC, P.S.I.P. Estate, Delhi.
2. The above noted case was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by Medical Council of India (for short, 'MCI'), alleging that when the petitioner applied for registration with it, claiming that he had obtained diploma in M.D. from Ukraine, he submitted the marks-sheet of 10 + 2 showing that he has passed 10 + 2 examination from the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council, Guwahati; it was sent for verification and found to be forged. Accordingly, FIR was registered. Relevant portion of the FIR reads as under:
'Accordingly a copy of 10+2 marks-sheet issued in respect of Dr. Pankaj Goel was sent for verification to the Secretary, Assam Higher Secondary Education Council, Bamvuuimaidan, Guwahati. The Secretary, Assam Higher Secondary Education Council, Guwahati vide their letter dated 19.9.2001 informed that 10 + 2 marks-sheet is forged.'
3. During the course of the investigation, Police seized original documents from the MCI and also made further inquiry from the Assam Board; the inquiry revealed that in fact petitioner had failed in the Higher Secondary examination. The reply was filed on 24.10.2003, opposing the bail application, stating that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to locate the source from where he arranged the forged certificate and to interrogate further persons, if any, so as to the reach the truth. Relevant portion of the reply reads as under
'The IO had sent a request to Assam Higher Secondary Education Council, Guwahati to confirm/verify the genuineness of the 10 + 2 marks-sheet submitted by the accused. Vide letter No. EXB/35/Result/03. DT. 22.10.2003, Controller of Examinations, Assam Higher Secondary Education Council, Guwahati informed that Sh. Pankaj Goel appeared in the H.S. Examination, 1994 (Science Stream) under Roll 520 No. B 587 [and not under Roll 520 B 752] but could not come out successful. The photocopy of marks-sheet bearing No. NB 032015, purported to have been issued by the Controller of Examinations to Sh. Pankaj Goel of B. Barooah College is that of a copy of counterfeit marks-sheet. No such marks-sheet was issued to Sh. Pankaj Goel.'
4. The petitioner, despite opportunity did not file any rejoinder, contesting theabove facts. Investigation thus reveals that the petitioner did not fulfill the basis ofminimum qualification, seeking admission in the Medical Course abroad. It is nota case where the petitioner had obtained less than 50% marks [minimum qualificationsrequired to admission in the Medical Course].
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while denying the allegations, argued that the forged documents were provided to him by his relation, who has died; that petitioner studied for six years in Russia for getting Diploma and that he has been working in Deen Dayal Uppadhaya Hospital, Delhi as intern trainee. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the observations made in a similar case Dr. Rajeev Ratan Mishra v. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl.M.M. No. 2783/2003, and prays for relief of anticipatory bail on parity. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
'The only allegation against the petitioner is that he produced a fabricatedmarks-sheet showing that he had secured more than 50% marks in the 10 + 2examination, which was the minimum requirement. The original marks-sheet has been seized by the police. Learned Counsel further submits that interms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M.C.I. v. Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Association, : AIR 2002 SC1565 , petitioner has already appeared in the screening test held on 10/12.1.2003. Learned APP for the State does not contest the fact that the degree produced by the petitioner is genuine and the original marks-sheet has been seized.'
6. In the above case, the only problem was that he had obtained less than 50% marks and he submitted inflated marks-sheet so as to come within 50% marks. He had already appeared in the screening test held on 12.1.2003. But in this case petitioner had failed in the Higher Secondary Examination, he probably used somebody else's certificate. The diploma obtained from Ukraine itself may require verification. In/the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded to grant relief of anticipatory bail.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.