The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ashish vs Central Bureau Of Investigation consisting of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that merely because CBI initiated the process u/s 82/83 CrPC despite the pendency of the anticipatory bail application before this Court, it does not bar the consideration of the same by this Court.
Facts
National Testing Agency (NTA) is entrusted by the Government of India with the task of conducting Joint Entrance Examination (Mains) for admission to Undergraduate Engineering Programs (B.E/B. Tech). V. Mani Tripathi, Siddharth Krishna and Govind Vaarshney, (directors/signatories of M/s Affinity Education Pvt. LtdOne), Ms. Seema (counsellor of admission for Delhi/NCR) and Ms. Anjuman Dawoodani (counsellor of admission for Maharashtra) were involved in seeking and managing admission in top NITs and reputed engineering colleges via unfair practices. Rs.10-15 lacs were being demanded from the parents of aspiring students for the same. They were stated to have plotted with the supervisor of the exam centres at Sonipat during the JEE (Mains) 2021 session 4 exam and made necessary arrangements for fraudulent practices. During investigation, 3-4 candidates alleged that were given solved question paper several hours prior to the exam and were taken to some flat and were given solved question papers to memorize, which came in the exam. The investigation team was led to the said flat. The owner of the said flat disclosed that the same was rented to the petitioner Ashish and Sunil (Ashish’s relative). As per the prosecution, the petitioner and co-accused Sunil had helped the aspirants in memorizing the question papers and the identity of evidence has been withheld to maintain secrecy of investigation. They were also stated to be operating online examination centres and to have compromised various exams.
Procedural History
During the search conducted, several incriminating documents including list of candidates and the person who brought the candidates to them for getting the papers cracked as well as electronic devices were seized. The accused were stated to be evading the process of law despite notice u/s 160 CrPC and notice u/s 41-A CrPC. In view of above, Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against the petitioner and co-accused Sunil.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: No documents connecting the petitioner with the flat had been seized by the investigating agency and there is no direct evidence in the form of aspiring any students or parents of the student or assuring them for any undue benefit in the examination. The alleged recovery of incriminating material is stated to be not connected with the petitioner. The petitioner is willing to join the investigation and has clean past antecedents.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that merely because CBI has initiated the process u/s 82/83 CrPC despite the pendency of the anticipatory bail application before this Court, it does not bar the consideration of the application by this Court.
It was noted that the only role which has been ascribed to him is regarding helping a student to memorize the questions. He had no substantive role in respect of the alluring the parents or taking any active part at the respective centres. Merely because the flat is stated to have been subsequently in his possession, it cannot lead to an adverse presumption at this stage.
Judgment
The Bench directed that the pet
Read itioner be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of the sum of Rs. One lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/SHO concerned and subject to the following conditions:
- He shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer (IO) concerned/SHO concerned/concerned trial court at the time of release, which shall be kept in working conditions every time. He shall not switch off or change the same without prior intimation during the period of his interim bail.
- He shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without the prior permission of the concerned trial court or indulge in any criminal activity or any illegal activities during the bail period.
Further, he was directed to join the investigation, as and when directed.
Case: Ashish vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: BAIL APPLN. 143/2022
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Decided on: 13th May 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
