Himachal Pradesh High Court
Arvind Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 8 December, 2022
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 2028 of 2022
.
Date of Decision: 8.12.2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arvind Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Petitioner Mr. Suneel A wasthi, Advocate.
For the Respondent Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional
Advocate General with Mr. Sunny
Dhatwalia, Assistant Advocate
General.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Bail petitioner, namely Arvind Kumar, who is behind the bars since 28.05.2022, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 5 of 2022, dated 17.05.2022 under Sections 419, 420, 201 read with Section 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station CID Bharari, Shimla.
2. In terms of order dated 25.11.2022, respondent-State has filed fresh status report and ASI Balbir Singh has come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2022 20:38:06 :::CIS 23. Precisely, the case of the prosecution against the bail petitioner is that he played active role in leaking question paper for .
the recruitment of Constables. It has been further alleged in the status report that bail petitioner was close associate of king-pin Bharat Yadav, who after having leaked paper for the recruitment of Constable, collected huge money from the aspirants. It has been alleged that co-accused Subodh Singh was contacted by Bharat Yadav for arranging the question paper for the post of Constable and thereafter, above named Subodh Singh contacted Sudhir Yadav, who at the relevant time was working in the printing press.
Sudhir Yadav allegedly handed over the question papers to co-
accused Gore Lal, who further handed over the same to co-
accused Gautam Bharati. Specific allegation against the bail petitioner herein is that that he being close associate of king-pin Bharat Yadav, used to co-ordinate with all the accused. It has been also alleged that money earned from selling/leaking papers was handed over to king-pin Bharat Yadav through present bail petitioner. As per the investigation, bail petitioner Arvind Kumar, who is close associate of Bharat Yadav, made all arrangements to circulate the question paper alongwith the aspirants/candidates participating in the exams of Constable, H.P. Police. One of the co-accused Aman disclosed to the police that he had handed over Rs. 10 lac to the present bail petitioner for further handing over the ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2022 20:38:06 :::CIS 3 same to Bharat Yadav. Since investigation in the case is complete and Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law, coupled .
with the fact that 28 accused out of 30 accused already stand enlarged on bail, bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for grant of regular bail
4. Learned Additional Advocate General while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly admits that 28 accused out of 30 accused already stand enlarged on bail.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that the precise allegation against bail petitioner is that he being close associate of main accused Bharat Yadav used to contact other people involved in the incident. Allegedly, one of accused Aman also handed over Rs. 10 lac to the present bail petitioner, who otherwise is a distributor of medicine in the State of Bihar. Main accused Bharat Yadav is already in custody and other person Sudhir Yadav, who after having arranged the question paper from the printing press leaked the same already stands enlarged on bail.
::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2022 20:38:06 :::CIS 4Whether the bail petitioner contacted other co-accused is a question, which needs to be ascertained by learned trial Court in .
the totality of evidence led on record by prosecution as such, it may be too premature at this stage, to conclude complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner in the commission of alleged offence. Leaving everything aside, 28 accused, who were involved in paper leaking, already stand enlarged on bail. Person like Sudhir Yadav, who actually arranged the paper from printing press already stands enlarged on bail, as such, this court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him.
6. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law.
Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2022 20:38:06 :::CIS 5 the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
.
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
9. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.
::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2022 20:38:06 :::CIS 610. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down .
various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.
11. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh with one local surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:
(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;
(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and
(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
12. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.
::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2022 20:38:06 :::CIS 713. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall .
remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.
A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 8th December, 2022 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2022 20:38:06 :::CIS