Read Time: 08 minutes
The court held, “The manner in which the certificate was obtained which reveals involvement of various persons at various levels including govt. officials, this court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail since her custodial interrogation is mandatory to unearth complete facts and evidences”.
The Rohini Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of AAP councilor Bobi misrepresented her community and obtained a caste certificate from the office of Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P., using false documents.
Additional Sessions Judge Kapil Kumar prima facie opined, “The manner in which the blurred and illegible documents were uploaded at the time of submitting application form and the rules which were flouted by the concerned authorities… in issuing the certificate reveals that it could be a big nexus in which several persons were involved”.
Bobi, represented by Advocate Neeraj Dahiya, asserted that the FIR against her was false and had been filed by the complainant through the misuse of the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Advocate Neeraj Dahiya asserted that the complainant had deliberately filed a petition under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate, using an incorrect application number concerning the certificate at issue. The certificate had originally been issued in U.P. and was later used to apply before the relevant authority in Delhi, where it was subsequently issued.
On behalf of the complainant, Advocate Satyanarayan Sharma argued that the Magistrate had issued an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after reviewing two conflicting reports on the certificate from the same authority. Given this, custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. He also noted that the revision petition against the Magistrate's order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had been dismissed.
Advocate Sharma further argued that Bobi had significant influence, as shown by the complainant's multiple RTI requests to the department about the certificate's issuance, all of which went unanswered.
Additional Public Prosecutor Gyanendra Kumar Mishra, representing the state, contended that Bobi had violated the spirit of the Constitution by contesting an election for a seat reserved for a specific community. It was argued that a fraudulent certificate had been submitted with the election nomination form, constituting fraud not only against the community but also the state's population.
The Investigating Officer (IO) reported that Bobi had not cooperated with the investigation, failing to provide crucial documents related to the certificate's issuance from Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., despite repeated opportunities. The IO further stated that Bobi had shifted responsibility to her late mother, claiming her mother had applied for the certificate, and since her mother was deceased, she could not explain what documents had been attached to the application. The IO also noted additional issues, including the fact that Bobi possessed two election ID cards with different dates of birth, which further justified the need for custodial interrogation.
The court observed that the case was initiated based on a Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was alleged that Bobi had misrepresented her community to obtain a caste certificate using false documents. The Investigating Officer (IO) reported that while the caste certificate was verified as issued, the supporting documents were missing.
Efforts to retrieve these documents from the Tehsildar and NIC yielded blurred and illegible files, with only Bobi’s photograph being clear. Bobi shifted responsibility to her deceased mother, claiming she had applied for the certificate. However, the court found Bobi's lack of knowledge implausible, as she was an adult during the application in 2017.
The IO revealed that a local inquiry into Bobi’s caste had not followed proper procedures, and no statements confirming her community were recorded. Further inquiries showed that Bobi lacked proof of residence in Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P., where the certificate was issued. Additionally, Bobi possessed two election ID cards from Delhi with different birth dates, raising further doubts about her residency.
Documents from the investigation indicated that Bobi had resided in Delhi for over two decades, questioning her claim of residence in U.P. The court noted that blurred documents were deliberately uploaded, suggesting the involvement of multiple parties. Despite being granted interim protection from arrest, Bobi failed to cooperate with the investigation.
As a result, the court denied her request for anticipatory bail, deeming custodial interrogation necessary to uncover the full facts.
Case Title: Bobi v State (Bail Application No. 1645/2024)
Please Login or Register
