Karnataka High Court
Harish K vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 January, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11769 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
HARISH. K,
S/O KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC: SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE - 560 091.
R/O NO.20, 4TH MAIN,
LAKSHMAN NAGARA,
OPP: MOHAN THEATRE,
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS,
VISHWANEEDAM POST,
SUNKADAKATTE,
BANGALORE - 560 091
Digitally signed by ...PETITIONER
NANDINI B G
Location: High (BY SRI: C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR
Court Of Karnataka
SRI: CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 4
URBAN DIVISION KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: PRASANNA KUMAR .P., SPL. PP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.60/2022 OF HIGH GROUNDS P.S. BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 36, 37, 119, 409,
-2-
CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
420, 465, 468, 471, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
UNDER SECTIONS 7(A)(C), 7A AND 8 AND 13(1)(A) READ WITH
SECTION 13(2) OF P.C ACT ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE (P.C ACT)
BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.34 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.60 of 2022 of High Grounds Police Station, pending on the file of the learned XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru (CCH No.24), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 36, 37, 119, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 7(a)(c), 7A and 8 and 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the PC Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant P Narasimhamurthy.
2. Heard Sri C H Jadhav, learned senior advocate for Sri Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P -3- CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022 Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.34. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Initially, FIR not registered against 22 accused. Petitioner was not named in it. During investigation, this petitioner is falsely implicated arraying him as accused No.34.
4. The petitioner is a public servant working as Sub Inspector of Police, Byadarahalli Police Station. He was never entrusted with any work relating to the recruitment of candidates for the post of PSIs. He was apprehended on 13.06.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. Initially, FIR was registered with Chowk Police Station, Kalaburagi alleging malpractice in conducting examination and tampering with the answer sheets. All the accused who were named in that case are already enlarged on bail. However, High Grounds police registered Crime No.60 of 2022 against 22 accused -4- CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022 alleging malpractice and tampering of OMR sheets. All those accused are already enlarged on bail. Investigation is already completed and the charge sheet is filed. It is alleged that the petitioner acted as a middleman in collecting the amount from accused Nos.14 and 16 and retained Rs.5 lakhs as his commission. There are absolutely no material in support of such allegations. Section 409 of IPC is not at all applicable as there was no criminal breach of trust as alleged. The provisions of PC Act are also not applicable against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition filed by the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner is a public servant. Since the petitioner is a public servant working as Sub Inspector of Police, he should have been released on bail, as chances of his abscondence is very remote. Where similar allegations of acting as middleman and collecting the amount is made against the private accused, they are already enlarged on bail. When the petitioner is not required for further investigation and when there is no chance of his abscondence, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. His detention in custody would amount pre-trial punishment. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the -5- CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022 cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, Sri. Prasanna Kumar.P, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-Lokayuktha submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.34. He is working as Sub-Inspector of Police of Byadarahalli Police Station. He in collusion with accused No.33 who is working as RPI in KSRP Unit, Bengaluru, developed contact with accused Nos.14 and 16 who are aspirants for the post of PSI and were writing the examination. They demanded Rs.30,00,000/- from accused No.14 and Rs.50,00,000/- from accused No.16 promising them to clear their names in the examination and received Rs.30,00,000/- each from them. Further, the petitioner through accused No.33 contacted accused No.29 who is working as FDA in the recruitment Branch and handed over a portion of the amount along with carbon OMR sheets and the pen with which they have marked the original OMR sheets. They assisted in illegally tampering with the OMR sheets. The petitioner has retained Rs.5,00,000/- from out of the amount -6- CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022 received from accused Nos.14 and 16, as his commission. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner even though working as PSI of Byadarahalli Police Station, by misusing his position and developing link with the other officials in the Police Department, managed to induce the aspirants, who are otherwise would not have qualified for the post of PSI, promised them and then done necessary acts to see that their OMR sheets are correctly filled. Accused No.35 being the Head of the Recruitment Branch and accused No.31 being his close associate have managed to instruct accused Nos.25 and 28 who were in- charge of the strong room, where the OMR sheets were being stored, to get the OMR sheets of accused Nos.14 and 16 and with the key which was with accused No.31, tampered the same by using the pen with which accused Nos.14 and 16 have marked the original OMR sheets and filled the blank columns, which were kept blank by the candidates, with correct options to see that they are qualified in the examination, by tampering the original OMR sheets. The accused projected the tampered OMR sheets as the answer sheet of accused Nos.14 and 16 and played fraud on the Government and also on the eligible candidates who have written the exam with merits. -7- CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
6. Learned Prosecutor further submitted that the modus operandi adopted by the accused is that they would instruct the candidates who approached them and were ready to pay the money which was demanded, to write 11 or 19 in column No.4 of OMR Sheet, which could be later modified as
99. They were instructed to fill only few options and were also instructed to preserve the pen which was used in marking the OMR sheets and the carbon copy with them. After the examination, the original OMR sheets preserved in the strong room used to be taken out and the same were tampered by filling the other options which were left blank by the candidates.
7. Learned Prosecutor further submitted that the OMR sheets of accused Nos.14 and 16 which were tampered at the instance of the present petitioner with the help of the co-accused, were sent for FSL examination and the report discloses that the same were tampered with. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused making specific allegations. -8- CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
8. He also contended that the CCTV cameras installed near the strong room were systematically switched off on the particular days at 9.30 a.m., to enable the offenders to open the strong room, take out the OMR sheets of the identified candidates and to tamper the same as per their convenience. He also contended that the details of the CCTV footages disclose that for three days the cameras were switched of at 9.30 in the morning, when the offence in question was committed. Learned Prosecutor also contended that in all the examination centers CCTV Cameras were installed to ensure free and fair examination. The footages of all the cameras were sent for FSL examination. The FSL Report is still awaited which will provide further links to unearth the misdeeds committed by the accused. So far, Rs.3.5 crores were recovered by various accused including the petitioner. It is suspected that much more was received by the accused from various candidates and the said amount is being tracked. Therefore, a requisition was submitted with the learned Magistrate to permit further investigation in the matter. The said request was considered and Investigating Officer was -9- CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022 permitted to carry on the further investigation. The further investigation is still in progress.
9. Learned Prosecutor further submitted that so far, only private individuals, including the candidates who are involved in commission of the offence, were granted bail as the Court opined that they may not be in a position to influence the persons in key positions and may not tamper with the evidence collected during investigation. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the prosecution that the public servants who are arrayed as accused, including the petitioner, can go to any extent to tamper with the evidence or with the witnesses as they could tamper the answer sheets which were kept in the strong room with high security. Learned Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner and the other accused committed such a heinous crime which demolishes the edifice of rule of law and destroys the faith of the general public in the system. It is an economic offence which shook the conscious of the Society at large and which led to cancellation of the entire selection process. About 55 thousand candidates have attempted the examination and many of them were meritorious and many of them will cross the age bar to attempt another examination.
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
10. Learned Prosecutor submitted that the offence committed by the accused will have serious adverse effect not only on the candidates who have attempted the examination fairly and with all seriousness, but also the Society at large. Since criminal conspiracy is a mental status which generates in the mind of the criminal, the facts and circumstances of the case along with the conduct of the accused is to be considered to draw an inference regarding such deep rooted criminal conspiracy amongst the accused. He further contended that since the nature of offence is very heinous, with deep rooted conspiracy, the discretion while considering the bail application is to be exercised cautiously and it should be in favour of the prosecution. The release of the petitioner on bail would definitely lead to hampering the investigation as he is capable of tampering with the material evidence and influence the witnesses.
11. Learned Prosecutor placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention:
1. Vinod Bhandari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1 1 (2015) 11 SCC 502
- 11 -CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
2. State of Bihar and Another vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai2
3. R.Venkatkrishnan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation3
4. Chandrakeshwar Prasad alias Chandu Babu vs. State of Bihar and Another4
5. Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar and Another5
6. Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of 6 Investigation
12. In view of the above, learned Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for bail in view of the seriousness of the offence, the position of the petitioner in the Department, specific overt-act alleged to have committed by him and also in view of the further investigation that is being carried on. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
13. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
2
(2017) 13 SCC 751 3 (2009) 11 SCC 737 4 (2016) 9 SCC 443 5 (2022) 4 SCC 497 6 (2013) 7 SCC 439
- 12 -CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
14. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Department at Byadarahalli Police Station. The allegations made against the petitioner in the charge sheet initially filed by the Investigating Officer disclose that he being the public servant, working as Sub- Inspector of Police conspired with co-accused and developed contacts with the aspirants who were willing to shell out some money to gain entry in to the Department from backdoor, and knowing 'who is who' in the Department could tap the 'right person' for the job.
15. It is alleged that as a part of conspiracy, the petitioner developed contact with accused Nos.14 and 16 who were the aspirants for the post of PSI, with less merit, and who are agreeable to pay hefty amount and said to have collected Rs.30,00,000/- each. It is also said that he has 'earned' the
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022commission of Rs.5,00,000/- for the job he has done. He managed to instruct accused Nos.14 and 16 to attempt only few options in the OMR sheets, to enable him to tamper and mark the right options to see that the maximum number of right answers are marked. In this job, the petitioner systematically coordinated with accused Nos.25, 28, 31, 33, and 35, who are all public servants, holding key positions, including the Senior IPS Officers. The act of the petitioner and other accused presupposes well planned conspiracy, execution of such conspiracy in a systematic manner to derail the entire system of recruitment and to destroy the faith of the general public in the system.
16. The allegations which are supported by prima-facie materials, including the FSL report, produced along with the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer constitute a heinous socio-economic offence committed by the persons in power and position. The manner in which the conspiracy was said to have been carried on, discloses that the accused are capable of corrupting any system for their lust for money. A dacoit may commit the offence to earn some money for his livelihood or even to lead a lavish life. A murderer may commit the offence
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022to end the life of another person for his own reasons. Such offences may destroy the lives of such families or few others. But the allegations made against the accused disclose that the persons who are in high position and power, who are expected to be the role models for any youngster, have stooped to such a level in their crave for money, in spite of enjoying everything in life which a persons may dream of in his life. The offence alleged is much more serious than committing any heinous murder or dacoity or any other offence for that matter. As rightly contended by the learned Prosecutor, the act of the accused demolishes the edifice of rule of law and destroys the confidence of the general public in the system.
17. It is stated that about 55 thousand youngsters with the fond hope of getting their dream job toiled day and night in making preparations for facing the examination as aspirants for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. There may be few thousands of meritorious candidates who must have burnt the midnight oil to fair well in the examination. There may be many such candidates who might have attempted the examination as a last attempt to reach their dream job in view of their advanced age. There may be several such candidates
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022who must have dreamt of bringing a change in the Society and to serve the general public by joining the service in the Department. There may be many such parents who must have dreamt to see their wards in a responsible position in service of the Society. The act of the accused destroyed all these aspirations. It may not be strange if such eligible candidates and their entire family loose faith in the system and hope in their life. A reasonable impression may be created in the Society as a whole that the entire system is corrupt. When the Society start admitting that the system itself is corrupt, it will be a very dangerous situation for any civilized Society. The officers in the Department will have onourous responsibility of investigating in to a crime, maintenance of law and order in the society and also enforcement of social legislations. They are supposed to be the champions for any peaceful society. When candidates enter the system with corrupt means, we cannot expect that there will be any system worth mentioning to safeguard the interest of the citizen. It is rightly said that corruption is like cancer in our Society.
18. When the offence in question is unearthed, looking to its seriousness, the entire selection process is said to have
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022been cancelled by the Government. It will have multifarious effects, not only in the State but beyond that. The image of our State is portrayed in bad light. There must be a strong investigating agency to investigate such offence. It is the duty of the Courts to standby with such daring agency, in the interest of the Society as a whole. It is stated that the learned Magistrate has accorded permission for further investigation and rightly so.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Bhandari (supra) considered a similar situation of admission of undeserving candidates to MBBS course and held in Para - 17 as under:
"17. In the light of above-settled principles of law dealing with the prayer for bail pending trial, we proceed to consider the present case. Undoubtedly, the offence alleged against the appellant has serious adverse impact on the fabric of the society. The offence is of high magnitude indicating illegal admission to large number of undeserving candidates to the medical courses by corrupt means. Apart from showing depravity of character and generation of black money, the offence has the potential of undermining the trust of the people in the integrity of medical profession itself. If undeserving candidates are admitted to medical courses by corrupt means, not only the society will be deprived of the best brains treating
- 17 -CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
the patients, the patients will be faced with undeserving and corrupt persons treating them in whom they will find it difficult to repose faith. In these circumstances, when the allegations are supported by material on record and there is a potential of trial being adversely influenced by grant of bail, seriously jeopardising the interest of justice, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the trial Court and the High Court in declining bail".
(emphasis supplied)
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kumar (supra) considered the socio - economic offence of huge magnitude where the principal of the college was alleged to be the kingpin, where several provisions of IPC and prevention of corruption act were invoked, held in paras- 13 to 15 as under:
"13.We are also conscious that if undeserving candidates are allowed to top exams by corrupt means, not only will the society be deprived of deserving candidates, but it will be unfair for those students who have honestly worked hard for one whole year and are ultimately disentitled to a good rank by fraudulent practices prevalent in those examinations. It is well settled that socio- economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. Usually socio-economic offence has deep-rooted conspiracies affecting the moral fiber of the society and causing irreparable harm, needs to be considered seriously.
- 18 -CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
14. Further, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency is going to file additional charge-sheet. Therefore, the respondent's presence in the custody may be necessary for further investigation. Furthermore, we cannot approve the order of the High Court, in directing the investigating authority concerned to file the charge-sheet within a month, as the case involves almost 32 accused and a complex modus operandi.
15. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the gravity of the offence and several other crucial factors which are discussed in detail in preceding paragraphs, we are of the opinion that it is not advisable to release the respondent-accused on bail at this stage. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on final merits of the case, we set aside the order of the High Court. The appeal stands allowed."
(emphasis supplied)
21. In R.Venkatkrishnan (supra) the Supreme Court considering the concept of criminal conspiracy, punishable under Section 120B of IPC as an independent offence held in Paras - 72 and 74 as under:
"72. Criminal conspiracy in terms of Section 120-B of the Code is an independent offence. It is punishable separately. Prosecution, therefore, must prove the same by applying the legal principles which are applicable for the purpose of proving a criminal misconduct on the part of an accused. A criminal conspiracy must be put to
- 19 -CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
action and so long a crime is merely generated in the mind of the criminal, it does not become punishable. Thoughts, even criminal in character, often involuntary, are not crimes but when they take concrete shape of an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal but by illegal means then even if nothing further is done, the agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy.
74. The courts, however, while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is, thus, difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed and the level of involvement of the accused persons therein are relevant factors. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that the propounders had expressly agreed to or caused to be done the illegal act but it may also be proved otherwise by adduction of circumstantial evidence and/ or by necessary implication. (See Mohd. Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra.) (emphasis supplied)
22. In Chandrakeshwar Prasad (supra) the top court analyzed the relevant considerations for grant of bail and summarized the principles to be followed at the time of deciding the application for bail by referring to its earlier decisions and held in Paragraph Nos.10 and 11 as under:
- 20 -CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
"10. This Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI balanced the fundamental right to individual liberty with the interest of the society in the following terms in para 16 thereof: (SCC p. 79) "16. We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society."
11. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, this Court in the same vein had observed that though the period of custody is a relevant factor, the same has to be weighed simultaneously with the totality of the circumstances and the criminal antecedents. That these are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire and that societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition to individual liberty, was underlined."
(emphasis supplied)
- 21 -
CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
23. In Brijmani Devi (supra) the Apex Court again considered the relevant considerations and principles that have to be kept in mind while deciding the prayer for bail and referred to its earlier decisions and held in Paragraph Nos.23 and 28 as under:
"23. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, speaking through Banerjee, J., observed as under: (SCC p.602, para 3) "3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order -- but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -- more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter."
28. This Court in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, observed that though the period of custody is a relevant factor, the same has to be weighed simultaneously with the totality of the circumstances and the criminal antecedents. That these are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire and that societal concern
- 22 -
CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022has to be kept in view in juxtaposition to individual liberty, was underlined".
(emphasis supplied)
24. The Supreme Court in the case of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra) considered the corruption conspiracy on mammoth scale by the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh to benefit his son, while deciding the application of the accused for bail and held in Paragraph Nos.34 and 35 as under:
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.
(emphasis supplied)
- 23 -CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
25. The charge sheet prima facie discloses the evidence against the petitioner for having committed the offences as alleged. The statements of various witnesses, digital evidence, Forensic lab reports strengthen the allegations made against the accused in general and against the petitioner in particular. The discussions held above discloses the manner in which the offences was committed by the petitioner, who holds high position, power and influence in the society. The effect of such Socio-economic offence committed by the petitioner in collusion with other accused will have serious adverse impact on the fabric of the society. There are sufficient materials to conclude at this stage that the offences of high magnitude, where an attempt was made to infuse undeserving candidates into the Department of Police by corrupt means. The persons with such criminal intent and infusing of more such corrupt persons in the system will have disastrous consequences. The Investigating Agency has to go to the root of the matter to unearth the flow of black money which will have its tentacles in each and every walks of life and its result will be beyond our imagination. The
- 24 -
CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022conspiracy committed by the petitioner in collusion with the co- accused would not only attack due process of the procedure for selection of deserving candidates for key posts, the result of such acts will damage the confidence which a common man repose in the system and the resultant damage that could be caused to the civilized society cannot even be imagined. The offences committed by the accused is in fact shaken the consciousness of the society. As rightly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, these types of socio-economic offences will definitely have deep rooted conspiracies affecting the moral fiber of the society, which will have the impact of causing irreparable harm. Ignoring such offence will lead to regularizing the corrupt practice in all walks of life.
26. From the facts and circumstances of the case supported by the material documents, the acts of the accused, including the petitioner in hatching the conspiracy and executing such conspiracy to achieve their lust, could be made out. Even though it is contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since from the date of arrest, and his right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
- 25 -
CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022of India is jeopardized, the collective cry and the societal interest is considered to be the paramount and it is to be safeguarded at any cost. The rule of law cannot be ignored at the cost of individual rights and liberty.
27. From the discussions held above, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner who is holding high position and power in the society and who could venture to derail the entire system of selection process, is capable of derailing further investigation. The effect of such influence either on the investigation or on the prosecution witnesses or on the materials that are already collected, would be very serious and definitely it is not in the best interest of the civilized society. Releasing the petitioner on bail will definitely send wrong signal to the society and it will have an impact on the credibility of the judiciary. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
28. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
- 26 -CRL.P No. 11769 of 2022
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/- & SMJ