Rupam Das vs The State Of Assam
2021 Latest Caselaw 440 Gua

                                                                              Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010157482020




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./2379/2020

              RUPAM DAS
              S/O- LT. PRABHAT DAS, R/O- VILL- DOLAIGAON, UZANPARA, P.S.
              BONGAIGAON, P.O. BONGAIGAON, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-
              783385



              VERSUS

              THE STATE OF ASSAM
              REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. T DEURI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

                                          ORDER

Date : 09.02.2021

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent.

2. By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Rupam Das has prayed for grant of bail in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 21/2020 registered u/s Page No.# 2/7

120B/409 of the IPC r/w Section 66(B) of the I.T. Act, 2000 and added Sections 201/204 of the IPC, Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 7(a)(b)(c)/8/12/13(1)

(a)/13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

3. The scanned copy of the case record of PRC Case No. 25/2021 along with the case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court.

4. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, submits that the accused has been in judicial custody for more than 100 days since 12.10.2020. Mr. Choudhury further submits that on completion of investigation, the investigating officer has laid a charge-sheet on 04.01.2021 although no recruitment examination related incriminating material was recovered out of his exclusive possession, but from his father-in-law's house. Mr. Choudhury also submits that 2 (two) of his co-accused persons are already released on bail. According to Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel, as the charge-sheet has been filed, further interrogation of the accused by the police will not be required and as such, if released on bail, he undertakes to participate in trial of the case. Mr. Choudhury relied on the order, dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Saran Vs. A.C.B., C.B.I. reported in AIRONLINE 2019 SC 529.

5. Per contra, Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the case, the learned trial Court is yet to consider the charges and on the other hand, further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. has been vigorously going on into the case. Mr. Boruah further submits that the case is related to socio-economic offences of huge magnitudes, which shocked the morale fibre of the whole community of the State of Assam in recruitment process to the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police and therefore, in the backdrop of accusations and evidence collected by the investigating agency, release of the accused at the present initial stage of trial will certainly hinder in a fair and speedy trial. Therefore, Mr. Boruah, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submits that it is in the interest of a fair trial of the case securing regular presence of the accused and great public interest, the accused should not be released on bail. Mr. Boruah has relied on the ratio of the judgments rendered in- (i) Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 (ii) Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi and Anr., reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280 (iii) State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751 and (iv) Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. C.B.I., Page No.# 3/7

reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439.

6. I have considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides and perused records including the affidavits filed by the accused petitioner.

7. The prosecution story is that on 20.09.2020, one Pradeep Kumar, IPS (Retd.), Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam lodged an FIR before the Officer-in- Charge, CID P.S., Assam at Guwahati alleging, inter-alia, that the written test for recruitment of 597 posts of Sub-Inspector (UB) in Assam Police department was scheduled to be held w.e.f. 12 Noon to 3 PM on 20.09.2020 in various centres of all District Police Headquarters across the State under the supervisions of the District Level Selection Committees constituted by the State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam. However, it was alleged that unfortunately the question paper was leaked and circulated in whatsapp due to which the written test was to be cancelled. Such cancellation of competitive examination damaged the image of the State Recruitment Board as well as that of the Government of Assam, apart from causing financial loss to the Government and affected the careers of the aspiring candidates. The informant also stated that he received the information about the leakage of the question paper through whatsapp message from one Shri Gautam Mech.

8. It is noticed that on completion of investigation, a prima facie case as a whole, is established after deriving from the findings against co-accused persons in respect of the accused as stated hereunder-

"4. Rubul Hazarika @ Rubul Ali, S/O Md. Syed Ali (A-4) He is found to be one of the prime conspirators along with accused Saroj Sarma, Prasanta Kumar Dutta, Kumar Sanjit Krishna and others, who are involved in the offence of leaking the question paper of the written examination for the post of SI (UB) of Police and circulated the leaked question papers through whatsapp messages and by other means to different applicants in exchange of huge money. In furtherance of the conspiracy, he along with Saroj Sarma met Kumar Sanjit Krishna, the then Superintendent of Police, Karimganj & Chairman, District Level Selection Committee, at Karimganj on 12/09/2020. They conspired there to leak the question papers prior to the scheduled examination date, i.e., 20-09-2020 from the custodian of the question papers, i.e., Kumar Sanjit Krishna. He collected necessary materials like sealing wax, blade, cutter, adhesive tape etc. from Saroj Sarma and took with him for opening and resealing of the packet of question papers on 18/09/2020 at the time of proceeding to Karimganj from Guwahati. Rubul Hazarika asked three teachers of Bongaigaon to come to Guwahati and got their accommodation arranged from 17-09-2020 to 19-09-2020 in Hotel Mayur, Guwahati, with the help of Hira Choudhury. He opened the seal of the trunk containing the question papers in the official residence of Kumar Sanjit Krishna and took photograph of the question papers from the custodian, i.e., Kumar Sanjit Krishna, the then Superintendent of Police, Karimganj & Chairman, District Level Selection Committee, Karimganj, in exchange of rupees forty lakhs. He and his associates arranged/provided rooms & leaked question papers to several candidates at Hotel Bhargav Grand in the Page No.# 4/7

night of 19-09-2020 for conducting mock test to candidates with leaked question papers. He kept part of the crime proceeds of the case with Rupam Das Bongaigaon and others which were recovered and seized in course of investigation. He used a secret phone with fake number to conceal his criminal activities. He also collected money from candidates by inducing them of providing job of Sub Inspector. Further, he created alibi to conceal his criminal activities by leaving his own mobile phone in the house of Saroj Sarma on 18th Sept. 2020 before proceeding to Karimganj. He also managed to show his period of stay in Hotel Mayur upto 19 th Sept. 2020 whereas he had departed from the hotel in the morning of 18th Sept. 2020 to Karimganj. The evidence gathered during the course of investigation shall establish the complicity of the accused in the crime."

"8. Rupam Das, S/O Lt Prabhat (A-8) He was in possession of parts of the crime proceeds transacted/collected illegally from candidates with a promise to provide a job for the post of SI (UB) of police. On the basis of information provided, Bongaigaon police conducted search in the houses of the accused and his associates and recovered huge amount of money. Accordingly, Bongaigaon police seized the unaccounted money which was kept by him in the house of his father-in-law. He became a part of the conspiracy at the instance of accused Rubul Hazarika and hid the crime proceeds of the racket at different places. He concealed the crime proceeds at different places in connivance with other co-accused persons, concealing design to commit offence. The evidence gathered during the course of investigation shall establish the complicity of the accused in the crime."

9. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet is submitted against the present accused u/ss 120B/120/201/420/34 of the IPC.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Saran (Supra) observed as below-

"5. The accused-appellant was arrested on 16.08.2017. It is not in dispute that charge-sheet has already been filed on 28th March, 2017. The charge-sheet indicates that the entire amount has since been recovered. In any case, since the charge-sheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation of the accused-appellant is necessary coupled with the fact that the trial of the case will take some time, we are inclined to direct release of the accused-appellant on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court in connection with Special Case No.5 of 2017 arising out of R.C. No.1202016A0006 of 2016 Police Station A.C.B., C.B.I., Ghaziabad, District- Ghaziabad. We order accordingly."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad (supra) observed as under-

"24. 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. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."

12. In the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as below-

Page No.# 5/7

"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the 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, behaviour, means and standing 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 or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (Supra) observed as below-

"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 need 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.

36. Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of CBI asking for further time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge-sheet(s), without expressing any opinion on the merits, we are of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this stage may hamper the investigation. However, we direct CBI to complete the investigation and file the charge-sheet(s) within a period of 4 months from today. Thereafter, as observed in the earlier order dated 5-10-2012 [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC

450. For text of the order see also para 17, below.] , the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial court and if any such petition is filed, the trial court is free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal."

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai(Supra) observed as below-

"8. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High Court has not given any reasoning while granting bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence is such the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the courts. We are not able to appreciate such a casual approach while granting bail in a case which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar.

9. We are conscious of the fact that the accused is charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and is alleged to be the kingpin/ringleader. Further, it is alleged that the respondent-accused is involved in tampering with the answer sheets by illegal means and interfering with the examination system of Bihar Intermediate Examination, 2016 and thereby securing top ranks, for his daughter and other students of Vishnu Rai College, in the said examination. During the investigation when a search team raided his place, various documents relating to property and land to the tune of Rs 2.57 crores were recovered besides Rs 20 lakhs in cash. In addition to this, allegedly a large number of written answer sheets of various students, letterheads and rubber stamps of several authorities, admit cards, illegal firearm, etc. were found which establishes a prima facie case against the respondent. The allegations against the respondent are very serious in nature, which are reflected from the excerpts of the case diary. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the credibility of the education system of the State of Bihar."

Page No.# 6/7

15. Also, in the case of State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below-

"28. In Panchanan Mishra case [(2005) 3 SCC 143 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 660] it has been held that the court must apply its mind and go into the merits and evidence on record and determine whether a prima facie case was established against the accused. It was held that the seriousness and gravity of the crime was also a relevant consideration. That a balance has to be drawn by the court to protect fair trial and to secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in a heinous crime and if there is delay in such a case the underlying object of cancellation of bail practically loses all its purpose and significance to the great prejudice and the interest of the prosecution. The Court summed up the principle that the ground to deny bail will be when by testing the balance of probabilities it appears that the accused has abused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice. It was noticed by the Court that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the victim and also create problems of law and order.

29. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] this Court reiterated that if a person was suspected of the crime of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life then there must exist grounds which specifically negate the existence of reasonable ground for believing that such an accused is guilty of an offence punishable with sentence of death or imprisonment for life. The jurisdiction to grant bail must be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case. 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, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with.

30. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar case [(2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] this Court reiterated that while granting bail, discretion must be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. It may not be necessary to do detailed examination of evidence and documentation of the merit of the case but there is a need to indicate reasons for prima facie conclusion, why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed serious offence."

16. On meticulous scrutiny of the case diary, it is revealed, inter-alia, that the accused transacted/collected a huge amount of money from the candidates with a promise to provide them the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (UB) in the Assam Police Department. Huge unaccounted money so collected from the candidates amounting to Rs.3,33,36,400/- was seized from the house of one Tarani Kanta Banikya, the father-in-law of the accused on being shown by the accused's wife and another amount of Rs.2,40,27,740/- was seized from the house of one Devraj Das. There is indication in the case diary that the accused and his associates have retained an additional amount of the crime proceeds somewhere, for which reason, further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is continuing and hunt is on to apprehend more of the accused's associates, who are still at large.

17. The case record reveals that the learned trial Court is yet to consider the materials on the case diary for the purpose of framing of the charges.

Page No.# 7/7

18. Therefore, at the present initial stage of trial of the case, where even charges are yet to be considered by the learned trial Court, it cannot conclusively be said that there is no prima facie case justifying the accused petitioner's continuation of detention inasmuch as when further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is on to unearth the whole illegal transactions of various characters in the matter of the said state recruitment process in the State. Considered thus, the pros and cons of the whole matter which involves the larger interest of the public/State and the apprehension of the accused's absconding from the course of justice, his release on bail will certainly cause hindrance in the speedy delivery of justice to both sides and the ongoing further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

19. For the above stated reasons, the bail application stands dismissed.

20. However, the accused is given liberty to approach the learned trial Court for bail at an appropriate stage of trial of the case if charges are framed and if such bail application is filed, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

This disposes off the bail application.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant