Delhi High Court
Manish Kumar Tiwari vs State on 10 February, 2017
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 10, 2017.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1468/2016
MANISH KUMAR TIWARI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Prabhat Kumar, Advocate with
Mr.R.P.Singh & Mr.K.K.Singh,
Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0041/2016
registered under Sections 406/407/408/409/120B IPC at Police Station
Crime Branch. Status report/Additional status report are on record.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Information was received at ISC, Crime Branch that a
question paper for examination for Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police etc. held
on 20.03.2016, conducted by Staff Selection Commission (SSC) was leaked
and consequently cancelled by the Commission. FIR in question was
registered on the complaint lodged by Insp.Sanjeev Kumar.
3. During investigation, it emerged that three different sources had
given information about the leakage of the question paper and its answer
key. On 21.03.2016 at 08.49 a.m. one Mohit Mudgal had sent an email to
SCC/North West Region (Chandigarh) informing about the leakage of
question paper. The said individual was identified to be a serving constable
in Delhi Police who was to take exam on 20.03.2016. He had joined
Paramount Coaching Centre, Uttam Nagar for coaching of SCC-CGL Exam.
On 20.03.2016 at about 9.30 a.m. a post was posted by mobile
No.9199905576 on WhatsApp group "My Students of Uttam Nagar" being
run by one Abhishek, a teacher of Paramount Coaching Centre. Constable
Mohit Mudgal made a complaint to SSC about the leakage of question
paper.
4. Status report reveals that on enquiry, Abhishek Ajay, informed
that he had created the said group with an intention to provide necessary
information to the students studying at Paramount Coaching Centre. He
informed that Bipin Kumar, group member, had posted the question paper in
the group. Subsequently, a team was sent to Siwan, Bihar and raids were
conducted at various places in search of Bipin Kumar. He disclosed of his
taking classes at Paramount Coaching Centre, Uttam Nagar. He further
informed that on 20.03.2016, he along with his senior, Sonu Singh was
present in village Pratapur, Distt.Siwan Bihar. Sonu Singh had received a
question paper of SCC on WhatsApp from someone. Sonu Singh called
back the concerned person and enquired about the message received i.e.
question paper. After talking to the concerned person, Sonu Singh told him
that it was SSC exam question paper scheduled to be held that day. He asked
Sonu Singh to forward the said question paper on his number and thus, the
said question paper was received by him from Sonu Singh via WhatsApp
and he forwarded it in the group. He had given the requisite information
about Sonu Singh and his mobile No.8539853744.
5. Sonu Singh was apprehended and examined. He disclosed that
on 20.03.2016, he had received the said question paper from the petitioner
Manish Tiwari who was his junior in the school and was classmate of his
younger brother. On receipt of the question paper from the petitioner, he
had called him to enquire as to which exam that question paper related to.
The petitioner informed that it was a question paper of SSC exam which was
to be held that day. The petitioner also told Sonu Singh that he had received
the question paper and if he could arrange few students, they both could reap
benefit. But he did not pay any heed to his words and forwarded the same to
Bipin Kumar, who was taking coaching classes of SSC exam.
6. During further investigation, mobile numbers were analyzed
and it was found that the petitioner resident of Village and Post Bharatpur
was using Mobile number being used for forwarding the question paper to
Sonu Singh.
7. Vide order dated 25.07.2016, the petitioner was granted interim
protection and he was directed to join the investigation. State was directed
to file additional status report indicating as to who were the users of mobile
numbers 7033011011, 8539853744 and 9939937989. Additional status
report has since been filed. It reveals that Mobile No.7033011011 was in
the name of the petitioner, the petitioner did not deny it. It further shows
that this mobile number was with the petitioner since 2015 and in January,
2016 the petitioner remained in Mukharji Nagr, Delhi, with this mobile
number. It is in the name of Sant Kumar Tiwari, petitioner's relative. It was
activated on 04.12.2015. It further reveals that IMEI's of the Handset used
for this numbers and the dates on which such handsets were used were
detailed in para 4 of the additional status report. This mobile number was
found switched off during the period from 18.03.2016 to 3.4.2016.
8. Regarding Mobile No.9939937989, additional status report
reveals that it was found in the name of Mahanarayan Tiwari of Fatehpur,
distt.Siwan, Bihar. During investigation, it revealed that this number was
used by the petitioner Manish Kumar Tiwari, Mahanarayan Tiwari's cousin.
IMEI No.353525061358710 was used for this mobile number. It was used
from 4.1.2016 to 16.04.2016. On 20.03.2016 its location was at village
Tarwara, Distt.Siwan.
9. Regarding Mobile No.8539853744, it was found to be in the
name of Jitendra Prashad of Distt.Siwan, Bihar. IMEI
No.353525061358710 was used by the petitioner from 25.01.2016.
10. It was ascertained that all these three numbers were used in a
common mobile handset bearing IMEI No. 353525061358710 at one point
of time or the other. Apparently, the petitioner had used these numbers at
different dates and time and has presented incorrect facts about its user.
No ulterior motive has been assigned to Sonu Singh for giving
false information about the receipt of WhatsApp message from the
petitioner. The police file contains a letter from Anand Tiwari to the
investigating agency whereby he informed that mobile No.9939937989 was
issued in the name of his father and it was being used by the petitioner
Manish Kumar Tiwari. Statements of Bipin Kumar and Sonu Singh recorded
on 15.04.2016 are crucial. Sonu Singh familiar with the petitioner has
categorically stated to have received the question paper on his mobile from
the petitioner.
11. Considering the gravity of the offence and serious allegations
whereby question paper of a renowned institution was leaked causing great
harassment and inconvenience to large number of bona fide candidates, it is
not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail where the conspiracy about the
leakage of question paper is to be unearthed.
12. The bail application is dismissed.
13. Observations in the order shall have no impact on the merits of
the case.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 10, 2017
sa
