IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.814 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.814 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.814 OF 2008 Rambahadur Narbahadur Bist ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr S. S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 30.4.2008. DATED: 30.4.2008. DATED: 30.4.2008. P P P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the application and the material available on record. 3. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.I-354 of 2007 registered with Vartaknagar Police Station, District Thane for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 324, 323 of the I.P.C. 4. This application is moved after having ( 2 ) suffered adverse order dated 20.2.2008 passed by Incharge Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, wherein the following observations were made. "3. Prosecution case is that on the day of incident i.e. on 13.11.2007 at about 3:30 p.m. there was quarrel between the applicant/accused and the deceased on account of non-payment of money of washing of Cars of the residents of Housing Society namely Laxmi Narayan Housing Society. Usually, accused used to wash the cars of the residents of the said Society but he went to Nepal as he is resident of Nepal and he entrusted the said work temporarily to the deceased. On his return from Nepal, applicant/accused took up the said work but refused to pay money to the deceased for the work done by him in accused’s absence. There was a quarrel between them on this account and it is alleged that the deceased gave fight with kicks and blows to the accused and being enraged by the said fight accused picked up a big stone and hit the same on the head of the deceased and due to the said impact deceased died almost instantaneously i.e. within three hours from the assault. "4. Name of the applicant-accused is reflected in the F.I.R. There are eye witnesses to the incident viz. four independent eye witnesses and two police officers who are also eye witnesses to the incident. Bail application is resisted on the ground of possibility of absconding of the accused as he is resident of Nepal. Considering the seriousness of the offence and in order to ensure speedy trial this is not a fit case to enlarge the accused on bail." 5. During the course of hearing, affidavit of one ( 3 ) Lal Bahadur Jang Bahadur Bist is filed on record to show that he is one of the relatives of the applicant and copy of his ration card is produced to show that Lal Bahadur Jang Bahadur is permanent resident of Mumbai with whom the applicant intends to stay. 6. The Investigating Officer was directed to make enquiry and submit report with respect to the genuineness of the ration card. The enquiry made revealed that a ration card produced by the applicant was already cancelled by the Rationing Department and that he is not holding any ration card. Photocopy of the report is taken on record. So far as the person filing affidavit is concerned, it is reported that on the given address he is also not staying. It is, thus, clear that the fabricated document is being used to seek bail. Thus, looking to the conduct of the applicant and the nature of the offences committed, the applicant is not entitled for regular bail. 7. In the result, the present application stands rejected. 8. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of ( 4 ) opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. 9. It has been noticed in number of cases that the documents produced as annextures annexed to the petition, and/or application and/or affidavit, are not certified by the Advocates as "True Copies". The Registry is accepting all such documents, even, without verifying as to whether the Advocate appearing for the applicant and/or respondent has certified the correctness of the documents produced. 10. In number of cases, during the course of hearing, it is noticed by this Court that the documents are either forged or they do not resemble with the original one. Most of the documents are not true copies of the original one. Most of the times Advocates have refused to take responsibility for want of certification by them. 11. In the above circumstances, the Registrar General is directed to issue instructions to all concerned Section Officers and/or Clerks and/or Authorities working under her/him not to accept any such application and/or petition and/or affidavit ( 5 ) annexed with the documents unless those documents are certified as "True Copy" by the Advocate on record. 12. If necessary, the Registrar General may issue "Practice Note" in this behalf with the concurrence of the learned Chief Justice. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)