Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482 – Pre-arrest bail.
(2025) 7 KCD 213 : 2025 KER 53941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
Bail Application No. 7852 of 2025; July 21, 2025
Original Offence & Investigation: The case arose from Crime No. 935/2021 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam. Initially, offences punishable under Sections 417, 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code were alleged. Later, the investigation was entrusted to the Crime Branch (Crime No. 2754/CB/KLM&PTA/R/2023), and offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were incorporated.
Prosecution Allegations: The core allegation was that the accused, Seema T.S., with intent to cheat and defraud the Government and the public, forged a PG Degree Certificate as that of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik. She then produced this forged certificate as original to obtain registration from the Travancore Cochin Medical Council. Based on this, she opted for a specialty cadre and worked as a Junior Consultant (O & G) at Cherthala Taluk Hospital and Karunagappally Headquarters Hospital from July 22, 2011, onwards, receiving associated benefits and salary. The crime was registered based on a complaint from the Senior Superintendent, Directorate of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram. The investigation was later transferred to the Crime Branch following a complaint by a couple, Sabu and Sreedevi, who alleged medical negligence leading to the death of their infant and raised concerns about the petitioner’s gynecology qualifications.
Petitioner’s Defence: The petitioner’s counsel contended that she is a qualified MBBS doctor (2003 passout) who enrolled in a PG Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Her husband allegedly informed her she had passed and obtained the “bogus certificate,” making her believe it was genuine. She claimed she only became aware of the forgery after the case was registered, subsequently appeared for and passed the examination, and obtained a genuine certificate.
Investigating Officer’s Report & Evidence: The report presented by the Public Prosecutor revealed:
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS) confirmed via email that the accused had not studied, appeared for, or passed the Master of Surgery in Obstetrics and Gynaecology course.
Notary advocates who attested copies of the forged certificates stated they believed the originals provided by Dr. Seema were genuine.
MUHS officials confirmed the certificate produced by the accused before the Kerala State Medical Council was not genuine, and she had failed the Diploma course in 2010 summer.
A letter sent by the accused to her college dean on September 2, 2010, requesting the return of certificates and stating she would not appear for the examination again, indicated her awareness of not having passed the diploma examination as early as 2010.
The Drawing and Disbursing Officer of Karunagappally Taluk Headquarters Hospital confirmed the accused was employed in the specialty cadre and receiving a salary and benefits based on forged Post Graduate certificates.
Prosecution’s Opposition to Bail: The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed anticipatory bail, asserting that the arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner were necessary. The prosecution argued the petitioner acted with deliberate intention to deceive and gain unlawfully. They also stated there was a substantial risk of her influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, and tampering with digital evidence if released on bail.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision: The Court cited State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, emphasizing the menace of corruption as a pervasive societal evil that destroys national development and genuine citizen rights. It highlighted the duty of courts to show zero tolerance to corruption and not grant liberal relief in such cases. The Court found the petitioner’s claim of no knowledge regarding the forged certificate unconvincing, noting that anyone taking an examination would know their result. The Court observed that the petitioner’s own letter from 2010 demonstrated her awareness of having failed the diploma examination. The Court concluded that the petitioner was aware she had not passed and was not qualified but used the forged certificate to work and treat patients, leading to serious concerns like the complaint of infant death due to alleged incompetency. Given the direct knowledge of the petitioner in the creation and use of the forged certificate, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for evidence and to prevent tampering with digital evidence, the Court found the bail application meritless and dismissed it. The petitioner was directed to surrender to the Investigating Officer forthwith, failing which the Investigating Officer was at liberty to proceed as per law.
