Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay vs State Of Haryana on 5 September, 2022
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-21367-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21367-2022
Reserved on: 26.08.2022
Pronounced on: 05.09.2022
Sanjay ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
0060 02.02.2022 Sector-5, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-
Panchkula B IPC r/w section 3 of
Haryana Public Examination
Act No.25 of 2021
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 18 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. The petitioner applied for recruitment in Haryana Police for the post of Constable but made someone else appear on his behalf to clear the tests and the recruitment process. However, due to mismatch of thumb impression and face, the impersonation surfaced.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
5. Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.
REASONING:
6. It is relevant and appropriate to refer to preliminary submissions made in the response filed on Affidavit by Assistant Commissioner of Police, headquarter, 1 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2022 04:14:16 ::: CRM-M-21367-2022 2 Panchkula, which reads as follows:
"1. That case FIR No. 60 dated 02-02-2022 under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC & Section 3 of the Haryana Public Examination Act, Police Station Sector 5 Panchkula was registered against 84 persons on the complaint made by Sh Bhopal Singh Khadri, Chairman, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula with regard to impersonation for the post of Male Constables (GD) Cat No. 01 and Female Constables (HAP Durga-1) Cat. No. 03 against Advt. No 4/2020 of the Police Department, Haryana. It was intimated that written exam for the above said posts was conducted on 31-01-221, 01-11- 2021,02 11-2021 and 12-12-2021 in various Districts (Headquarters) and Sub Divisions of Haryana Physical Measurement Test (PMT) of shortlisted candidates was conducted from 03-01-2022 to 20-01 2022 Parade Ground, Sector 5, Panchkula and during the physical measurement test, cases of impersonation came to the notice of the commission List of 84 suspicious candidates including the name and Roll Number 4201296846 of the petitioner at serial No 43 was attached with the complaint and request was made to investigate the matter and take necessary action against the culprits. The videography and photography of different stages of the recruitment process has been done and also finger print images of the persons appearing has been taken and compared by the Commission.
2. That during investigation notice under section 91 of Cr PC were given to Haryana Staff Selection Commission Panchkula and documentary record as well as electronic record in a hard disk containing data of videography photographs, finger prints images of the candidates taken at different stages of the recruitment process has been obtained and taken in police possession. Also statement of witnesses has been recorded and data of hard disk has been analyzed.
3. That there are serious allegations of using unfair means forging documents and impersonation on the petitioner and hence on 16 04-2022 notice under section 41 (A)Cr PC was issued to the petitioner to join the investigation on 18-04-2022 but petitioner did not join the investigation
4. That thereafter anticipatory bail application was filed by the petitioner before the Ld. Sessions Judge. Panchkula for grant the anticipatory bail but the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Ld. ASJ, Panchkula vide order dated 11-05-2022 after passing the well reasoned speaking order.
5 That during investigation it has surfaced that different persons appeared against above said Roll Number of the petitioner at different during the recruitment process regarding which only petitioner can tell who are the persons seen in videos and photographs who appeared in his place and why. Also, it has to be unearthed that who acted as mediators and who prepared fake documents to facilitate impersonators and how much money changed hands for the same. So, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to complete investigation qua them. "2
2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2022 04:14:17 ::: CRM-M-21367-2022 3
7. The preliminary investigation has confirmed that someone else appeared on the petitioner's behalf against the Roll number allotted to him, and such person is visible in videography, but to know his identity, the petitioner's custodial interrogation is required because he would reveal the name of such person and the persons who found out and hired the impersonator. A thorough investigation would be required to unearth the masterminds behind this recruitment scam, exposing similar impersonation in other recruitments. Suppose the law enforcers make it to the job through unfair means by impersonation, in that case, it is undoubtedly going to crumble the edifice of the entire structure of the force, where honesty, integrity, and discipline are the key attributes of human resources. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner.
8. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [19]. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. PadamNarain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305].
9. In State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [6]. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.
10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage.
11. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
33 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2022 04:14:17 ::: CRM-M-21367-2022 4 Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
05.09.2022
sonia arora
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: Yes.
4
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 07-09-2022 04:14:17 :::