Early Times Report
Jammu, July 10: Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Tahir Khurshid Raina today rejected the pre-arrest bail application of Dr Shashi Sudhan Sharma Principal Govt Medical College Jammu in case of forging her date of birth.
The Special Judge Anticorruption after hearing Sr. Advocate Pranav Kohli for the applicant whereas APP Irshad Ahmed for the Crime Branch, observed that the order granting or refusing bail must reflect a fine balance between the two conflicting interests i.e. sanctity of individual liberty and the demand of effective, perfect and fair investigation by the Police. “When seen in context of facts, as put in the preceding paras, I don’t find any justification left to this court to sustain the plea of pre-arrest bail to be granted to the accused. Consequently, the interim bail, granted vide order dated 06-07-2023 is not being extended further.”
“The gravamen of the case is based on date of birth controversy of the applicant, who is presently holding the coveted position of Principal Medical College, Jammu. The allegations as inferred from the report and the CD file is that her date of birth as recorded in the matriculation diploma issued by the J&K Board of School Education, Jammu, (for short JKBOSE) is 08-04-1965. However, it is alleged that as per the said date of birth, she was ineligible to appear in the MBBS entrance examination in the year 1981, as she had not then attained the eligible age of 17 years as on Dec. 31, 1981. It further transpires that she got her date of birth corrected from JK BOSE in the year 1981, whereby she got her new date of birth certificate, carrying date of birth as 08-04-1964. Based on this corrected date of birth certificate, she became eligible to appear in the MBBS entrance examination and she did appear and qualified the same and got selected for the said course. When she got admission in the GMC, Jammu for the said course, she mentioned her age in the admission form as 08-04-1964. Same she has filled up in her own hand and signature on 20.10.1981. Later, after completing her MBBS course, she got appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the year 1988. At the time of her appointment, she has then supplied Matric diploma, carrying her date of birth as 08-04-1965, as her age proof. Same has got mentioned on the first page of the service book, carrying her signature thereon which stand confirmed by the authority who attested the particulars on the first page, who was the then Chief Medical Officer, Health and Family Welfare, Jammu. With this date of birth, she then continued her service career.
Even in her declaration form submitted by her in the University of Jammu in the year 2016¬17, she has mentioned her date of birth as 08-04-1965. So the allegation that she carried two date of birth certificates, which she has used conveniently at two different occasions for obtaining two different benefits to receive i.e. the certificate based on 1964 date of birth she managed from JKBOSE and used for appearing in MBBS entrance examination and admission in the said course. But, when got appointed as Assistant Surgeon, then, with some different intentions, presented age proof based on the Matric Diploma carrying date of birth as 1965.
The said controversy, relating to date of birth of the applicant, came to fore in the year 2021, when Crime Branch, Jammu, received a complaint in this regard from a person, namely, Manu Gupta r/o Channi Himmat, Jammu. Pursuant to said complaint, a preliminary verification (for short PV) was initiated in the same year by the Crime Branch, Jammu. Finally, the allegations in the PV were found correct which led to the registration of an FIR bearing No. 57/2023 on 01-07-2023 against the accused. Search warrant got issued by the Additional Judge, Anti Corruption, Court, Jammu, whereby searches were conducted in the office and the house of the accused. Some documentary evidence has been recovered which form part of the CD file. The investigation is at its very nascent stage and accused is on interim bail as granted by this court.
Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu Tahir Khurshid Raina observed that during the course of full length arguments on the instant
application, I found a candid admission of facts by the counsel for the applicant that accused appeared in MBBS entrance examination in the year 1981 on the basis of the corrected date of birth as 08-04¬-1964 and based on it, she also got admission in MBBS course in GMC, Jammu.
However, she mistakenly supplied her matriculation diploma at the time of appointment, carrying date of birth as 08-04¬1965, an error at her part without any guilty intention.
So, prima facie, Court do not find any divergence of opinion on the allegations attributed to her by the prosecution that there are two date of births being carried by the applicant which she has used at two different stages of her career.
However, after getting her appointment, she continued with her date of birth as 08-04-1965. Even in the year 2016, she in her declaration, submitted to Jammu University mentions her date of birth as 08-04-1965. Not only to this context, but even in her reply to the questionnaire, put to her by the Crime Branch, Jammu, in the year, 2021, when the PV was going on, therein also she has categorically stated her date of birth as 08¬04-1965.
So based on these facts as revealed in the report and the CD file, there is no two opinion with regard to existence of two different date of births, conveniently used by the accused on two different occasions i.e one for getting admission in MBBS and second when got appointed as Assistant Surgeon. So the offence of fraud, forgery and misconduct under Prevention of Corruption Act, as pleaded by the Ld. APP, are prima facie made out. In that context, the element of humiliation and unnecessary targeting of the accused, based on some fake and false complaint is absolutely ruled out and any such argument pleaded by the counsel for accused does not sustain at all.
Now, in this context, whether the offence alleged is a high gravity offence, one of the factor to be considered while deciding the anticipatory bail application. Fact remains that gravity of the offence is not to be gauged only in context of the punishment prescribed. Though, it is on a higher degree for the said offences, but in my appreciation, notwithstanding to the degree of punishment, it is more to be seen in context of the status and position of the person who is alleged to have committed the same, Court said.
The Court further said that a doctor by profession, who happened to be earlier a teacher in the Medical College and presently at a high pedestal in the hierarchy is consciously continuing her alleged fraud, with two date of births certificates, using conveniently at different occasions, makes the alleged offence of high gravity.
She, being the role model should not have even thought in her imaginations which is alleged to have been done by her.
Even she carries two Pan cards, two driving licenses with two LIC policies her date of birth mentioned is 1964.
So this is the conduct of the accused, who is holding the coveted position of Principal Medical College. This speaks of her antecedents, another factor to be considered by the court while dealing with her prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. JNF |
