{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1262 OF 2010 Gurupreet Singh s/o Massa Singh Sokhi Age-26 years, Occ-Service R/o Vazirabad, Nanded APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the applicant Mrs.V.A.Shinde, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 14 th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.25/2010 registered with CIDCO (Gramin) police station, Nanded for an offence punishable u/s 420, 468, 469, 471 and 473 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. {2} 3. Today, learned counsel for the applicant has produced certified copy of the say filed by the Investigating Officer before the Sessions Court, Nanded. The say is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. 4. It appears from the perusal of the record that the said offence is registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Vasant Bhosale, Controller of Examination, working with Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded. It is alleged that several complaints were received from various employers alleging that some persons have secured degrees from the said university in which some mal practice has been noticed. In the said complaint, name of the present applicant figures at serial No. 10 and the allegations against the applicant are that in the mark sheet of the applicant there is altercation in the name and seat number. It appears that when the application was moved before the Sessions Court, say was called of the APP, who has submitted the same under the signature and instructions of the IO. My attention is drawn towards the contents of the said reply. 5. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the allegations against the present applicant do not cover under the ambit of section 420 so also other sections for which the complaint is lodged. Whenever a compliant is lodged in respect of forgery of the documents, comparison of original documents with the documents sent for verification is must and if it is found that there {3} is alteration, modification or interpolation in the original documents, then only the offence of forgery is constituted. On perusal of the reply submitted by the IO before the trial court, it appears that what was provided to the Investigating Agency by the complainant was a photo copy as the original is not available with the University or with the complainant. In the premise, without verification with original record, it cannot be inferred, even at the preliminary stage that the document is forged or fabricated and used for ulterior motive. Thus, in absence of verification of original document, this is a fit case where the applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant, in connection with CR No.25/2010 registered with CIDCO (Gramin) police station, Nanded, he be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. This protection is granted till filing of the charge sheet. It is made clear that these observations are prima facie observations based on the complaint and reply filed by the IO before the trial court and hence the learned Sessions Judge need not be influenced with these observations, if something new is unearthed during the investigation. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1262-10