Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rounak Ali Hazarika vs The State Of Assam on 14 October, 2022
Bench: B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.11 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5851/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-05-2022
in BA No.855/2022 passed by the Gauhati High Court)
ROUNAK ALI HAZARIKA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM Respondent(s)
(IA No. 87147/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 14-10-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Devadatt Kamat,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Pai Amit, AOR
Mr. Rajesh Inamdar,Adv.
Mr. Sudipto Bhattacharjee,Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Saha,Adv.
Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj,Adv.
Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nalin Kohli,Sr.AAG
Ms. Nimisha Menon,Adv.
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mr. Kumar Arnav Singhdeo,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This is a petition for grant of bail.
The petitioner/accused has been arrested in connection with Special Case No.2/2022 arising out of Vigilance Police Station Case No.6/2021.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2022.10.15 15:34:35 IST Reason: The petitioner is facing charges for offences punishable under 1 section 13(1)(a)(b)/13(2)/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 3(c)/4(1)/5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The petitioner belongs to the Indian Police Services. He was posted at different places in the State of Assam.
The allegations against the petitioner are that he possesses assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income. The other allegation is that he has made certain foreign visits, and as such, the act amounts to espionage and, therefore, is punishable under the provisions of Official Secrets Act, 1923.
We have heard Shri Devadatt Kamat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nalin Kohli, learned counsel for the State of Assam.
Shri Kohli, learned counsel, has vehemently opposed the application/petition. He submitted that, as per the Office Memorandum dated 29.01.2013, the petitioner could not have travelled abroad unless a permission, as provided under the said Office Memorandum (for short, ‘OM’), was obtained from the competent authority. It was further submitted that two of the petitioner’s visits cast a great cloud of suspicion over his conduct. He submitted that the petitioner had visited Hongkong on 12.04.2013 and returned on 21.04.2013. However, on the very next day i.e. on 22.04.2013, he travelled to Dubai. He submitted that the petitioner was posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police (Border) and there are strong reasons to believe that he has connections with enemy states.
We have perused the material on record. No doubt that the 2 office Memorandum dated 29.01.2013 requires a prior permission to be taken from the State Government even when an officer of the State Government travels abroad on a private visit. However, the petitioner has placed on record a communication dated 05.12.2007 issued by the Director (Services), Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training. The perusal of paragraph 2(i) therein would reveal that, when an officer in the cadre of All-India Services travels abroad on a private visit, he is not required to obtain prior permission. We do not propose to go into the question as to whether the Office Memorandum dated 29.01.2013 would also be applicable to the petitioner or not. Be that as it may, if there is a violation of the said OM, as provided in the said OM, the State is at liberty to take such steps for punishing such misconduct as provided in the said OM. Prima facie, the communication of the Government of India dated 05.12.2007 would not require a prior permission when an officer of the All-India Services travels abroad.
Insofar as the offences under the Official Secrets Acts are concerned, the petitioner, in the paper book itself has placed on record an order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant part of the said order:-
“In the case in hand, it is seen that the complaint has not filed either by Appropriate Government or the officer empowered by the Appropriate Government. So, I find no ground to take cognizance of offences u/s.3(c)/4(1)/5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 against accused Rounak Ali Hazarika.” 3 It could thus be seen that the learned Special Judge has found no ground to take cognizance of the offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the said order has either been reversed or stayed by a superior court.
In that view of the matter, what remains are the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegations pertain to possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, and connected offences under the IPC. As such, when evidence against the petitioner would be documentary in nature and the petitioner has already been incarcerated for a period of almost a year, we find this to be a fit case for grant of bail. So far as the apprehension of the State is concerned, stringent conditions could be imposed to allay such apprehensions. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the application/petition with the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) with two sureties of the like amount.
(ii) The petitioner shall surrender his
passport with the Investigating Agency.
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the Special Judge, Guwahati,
without seeking permission of the learned Judge.
Needless to state that any attempt on the part of the 4 petitioner to either tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses would enable the State to file an application for cancellation of bail.
Pending application(s),if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (ANJU KAPOOR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
5