IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.658 of 2011. Date of decision: 13.9.2011 _______________________________________________________ Mingchong Dorje alias Yab ….. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ….. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Chandel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Avinash Jariyal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana,Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 21/11 dated 30.7.2011 registered at Police Station State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Mandi, under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that allegations against the applicant are that being a Tibetan Refugee he forged two Wills of Kushok Bakula and got them registered. Thereafter he applied for permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and got the mutation attested in his favour on the basis of Wills. The applicant could not have done so as he is Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… not an Indian National. On these allegations, a case under Sections 420,468,471 & 120-B IPC has been registered at Police Station State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Mandi. The case is under investigation. The applicant has reasonable apprehension of arrest in view of the registration of the case. 3. The applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no direct evidence of connecting the applicant in the commission of offence. The applicant was born on 3.4.1960 and as per Citizenship Act, a person born in India after 26.1.1950 is a citizen of India irrespective of the nationality of his parents. The applicant has relied notification dated 12.9.1983 of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. The applicant has also relied copy of his passport wherein his nationality has been mentioned Indian and date of birth 3.4.1960, place of birth Leh and was issued on 3.1.2000. 4. It has been stated that detention of the applicant would not advance the cause of justice. The applicant is ready to join the investigation. He is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. No recovery is to be made from the applicant. The prayer has been made for releasing the applicant on bail. 5. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that the complaint of one Mohender Kumar was enquired and on inquiry it was found that applicant is a Tibetan Refugee who, in connivance with the then Tehsildar obtained a certificate that he is a resident of Leh ( J & K) and Indian National. The Tehsildar, Leh …3… without any enquiry issued certificate in favour of applicant showing him resident of Leh. On the basis of said certificate, applicant submitted his claim of Indian National, before the then Tehsildar, Sadar Mandi and applied for obtaining permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, on the basis of Will of Kushok Bakula and affidavit of Dr. S.G. Hara. The Tehsildar, Mandi without verification and on the basis of false certificate produced by applicant sent the case to the Government for permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act which was granted and the land was transferred in the name of applicant. It has been stated that the investigation is in progress. On these grounds submission has been made for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the police file. On behalf of the applicant, it has been submitted that applicant has joined the investigation. There is no allegation that he is not co-operating in the investigation. It has been submitted that applicant was born in India on 3.4.1960, therefore, as per Citizenship Act, he is Indian Citizen by birth. Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate has relied on copy of passport of applicant wherein his nationality Indian has been recorded and his date of birth has been shown 3.4.1960 and place of birth Leh. The allegations of the Investigating Agency are that applicant in connivance with the then Tehsildar, Leh had obtained a false certificate regarding his nationality and applied at Mandi seeking permission to transfer land under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy …4… and Land Reforms Act on the basis of Will of Kushok Bakula and affidavit of Dr. S.G. Hara. In the copy of passport of applicant date of issue is recorded 3.1.2000. It is a typical type of case wherein date of birth certificate and place of birth certificate of the applicant has not been placed on record in order to show that applicant prima facie is Indian National/Citizen. 7. The applicant has also not placed on record any affidavit of his near and dear indicating his date of birth and place of birth. The passport at this stage cannot be equated with date of birth certificate and place of birth certificate when these are in dispute. The applicant in the petition has not stated where he was born. The affidavit filed in support of the petition shows “contents contained” “are true and correct” In other words the applicant is educated person. He must have got education somewhere but nothing has been placed on record to show where he got the education and where he was born. The case against applicant is of a serious nature. The allegation against him is that he is not Indian Citizen, in connivance with some officials, he procured papers and on the basis of those papers he obtained permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act for transferring the land in his favour. 8. The interim bail in this case was granted on 25.8.2011 but till now according to the Investigating Agency nothing material has been shown by the applicant to indicate that he was born in India. Thus keeping in view of sensitive nature of the case, it requires thorough investigation and is not a fit case where indulgence of the Court can be shown for releasing the applicant on bail at this stage …5… under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed. 9. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. September 13, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.