Kumar Sanjit Krishna vs The State Of Assam
2022 Latest Caselaw 3236 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010113742022




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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./1369/2022

            KUMAR SANJIT KRISHNA
            S/O LATE UMA CHARAN BANIA
            R/O UMA TIRTHA
            H/NO. 51,
            KACHARI BASTI,
            ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, P.O. ULUBARI, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, PIN-781007,
            DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K N CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

                                          ORDER

Date : 26.08.2022

Heard Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. M Phukan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Gauhati High Court Page No.# 2/9

appearing for the State respondent.

2. By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner, namely, Kumar Sanjit Krishna, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with CID Police Station Case No. 21/2020 under Sections 120B/409 of the IPC read with Section 66 B of IT Act added Sections 201/204 of the IPC read with Section 25 (1B) Arms Act.

3. Scanned copy of the case record along with the case diary is placed before the Court.

4. Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for accused petitioner, contends that during the relevant period of controversy, the accused was working as the Superintendent of Police, Karimganj district, Assam and he, who is decorated with many prestigious police medals, rendered meritorious service for the last 26 years with high dignity and honour in the Assam Police department. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the accused petitioner had been co-operating with the investigating agency throughout in investigation since 15.10.2020 into the case pertaining to recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police (UB) examination held State-wide in 2020. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, emphatically contends that the question paper containing in sealed truck was received by the Centre in-charge, after checking it and on full satisfaction that the said truck seals were intact and not tampered in any manner. However, it was at around 12.05 pm, a message was circulated on WhatsApp by the Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board ( SLPRB) asking to stop examination as the question papers were leaked. Accordingly, after confirmation over phone, the examination was stopped at 12.15 pm

5. In the above noted case, Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, Page No.# 3/9

contends the investigating Agency, after completion of investigation laid a charge-sheet under Sections 120B/ 119/166/201/204/409/420/461/34 of the IPC read with Section 66 B of IT Act, read with Sections 7 (a) (b)(c)/ 13 (1)

(a)/13 (2) of the PC Act and read with Section 98 (a) of the Assam Police Act, 2007 against the accused petitioner and on different penal provisions against 35 others. Despite no fault on his part, the accused Senior Police officer has been languishing in jail for prolonged period since 15.10.2020. Therefore, Mr. Choudhury contends that the accused, who is a permanent resident of the given address and keeping in consideration of the presumption of innocence being the cardinal principle of the criminal justice and the right to liberty and life of the accused petitioner, he may be directed to be released on bail subject to any condition, this Court may deem proper. In support of his argument, Mr. Choudhiury, learned Senior Counsel, has relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of 1. Sanjay Chandra -vs- CBI , (2012) 1 SCC 40 , P Chidambram -vs- CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 337, Angela Harish Sontakke

-vs- State of Maharashtra, (2021) 3 SCC 723, Union of India -vs- KA Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe & Ors-vs- State of Maharashtra (2021) 3 SCC 725. Mr. Choudhury , learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Saibar Rahman-vs-State of Assam in Bail Application 1127/2022 and in Vijay Kumar Upadhyaya -vs-CBI in Bail Application No.1137/2022.

6. Vehemently opposing the bail application, Mr. M Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, Gauhati High Court, contends that the accused petitioner, who is a Senior police Officer, was the one of the kingpin of the cash for job of Sub- Inspector of Police (UB) recruitment scam and as such, it is a socio-economic offence of serious nature involving larger interest of the unemployed youths of Page No.# 4/9

the State of Assam. Mr. Phukan further contends that the serious nature of the incident of leaking recruitment question papers by the accused and his associates manifests his aggravated criminal misconduct of indulging in corruption for personal wrongful gain causing wrongful loss to the unemployed aspirants for the noble profession of police Officer, which entailed cancellation of their scheduled written test that shocked, as a whole, the moral fibre of the people of the State. Mr. Phukan also contends that the trial Court has framed the charges against the accused and others, on 13.05.2022, and thus, the case is at its evidence stage, where no prosecution witness is examined yet. Mr. Phukan contends that if the liberty of bail is granted to the accused at the present nascent stage of trial and without examination of the material prosecution witnesses, it is certain that a fair and transparent expeditious trial of the case will be hindered. Mr. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, has relevantly relied on the principles propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in the cases of YS Jagan Mohan Reddy -vs- CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, Nimmagadda Prasad -vs- CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466, Virupakshappa Gouda -vs State of Karnataka , (2017) 5 SCC 406.

7. The prosecution allegation is that on 20.09.2020, the Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam lodged an FIR with the Officer-in- Charge, CID PS, Assam alleging, inter-alia, that the written test for recruitment of 597 posts of Sub-Inspector (UB) in Assam Police was scheduled to be held w.e.f. 12 noon to 3 PM on 20.09.2020 in various venues/ centres in all District Headquarters across the State under the supervision of the District Level Selection committees constituted by the State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam. However, unfortunately the question paper was leaked and circulated in WhatsApp due to which the written test was cancelled, which had damaged the Page No.# 5/9

image of the Recruitment Board as well as that of the Government of Assam, apart from causing financial loss to the Government affecting 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 the accused petitioner has been in judicial custody since 16.10.2020, that is for 679 days in connection with the instant charge-sheeted case.

9. The previous bail application during investigation stage being Bail Application 2365/2020 under Section 439 CrPC was rejected by this Court vide Order dated 23.11.2020. For convenience, the relevant portion of the order is extracted herein below:

"Perused the case diary along with the bail objection petition filed by the investigating officer and the health status report submitted by the M. & H.O.- 1, Jail Hospital, Guwahati..

Having heard the learned counsel of both sides and perusal of the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it is revealed that there is abundance of prima facie incriminating material of serious nature projecting the accused petitioner to be one of the prime accused persons. The indepth vigorous investigation into the case is yet to be completed.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the backdrop of facts and circumstances as well as the nature of accusations that emerged from the case diary, if the liberty of bail is granted to the accused, the ongoing fair investigation into the case is certain to be adversely affected.

In view of the above backdrop of facts and prima facie evidence available on the case diary, the bail application stands dismissed."

10. A perusal of the case record reveals that the investigating officer Page No.# 6/9

submitted the charge-sheet against the accused and others under Sections 120B/119/166/201/204/409/420/461/506/34 of the IPC read with Sections 66 B of the IT Act read with Sections 7 (a) (b) (c)/13 (1) (a)/13 (2) of the PC Act read with Section 98 (a) of the Assam Police Act, 2007. The charge-sheet bears list of 183 prosecution witnesses.

11. The Court of learned Special Judge, Assam at Guwahati after hearing the learned counsel of both sides and perusal of the case record, framed charges under Sections 120B/119/201/409/420/461/506 of the IPC read with Section 7 (a)(b)

(c)/13 (2) of the PC Act, read with further, Section 98 (a) of the Assam Police Act, 2007 vide order, dated 13.05.2022. Accordingly, the case is presently pending at evidence stage, for which purpose, the learned trial court has been issuing summons to the witnesses. It appears that the learned trial court has notified in advance for hearing of the case on day to day basis.

12. On scrutiny of the case record along with the case diary, it is, inter-alia, prima facie revealed that the accused petitioner, who was the Superintendent of Police, hatched up a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused police officers/ personnel and private persons to obtain illegal gratifications from the candidates for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (UB) in the Assam Police Department. The accused police officer even leaked the question paper by circulation to facilitate the candidates and others, through middle men for wrongful monetary gain and caused disappearance of most vital documentary evidence relevant to his aforesaid misconduct as a public servant. This incident pertaining to rampant corruption in recruitment process of Sub-Inspector of Police (UB) in the State led to cancellation of the examination and re-scheduling the same causing huge financial loss to the State exchequer.

13. In Sanjay Chandra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that bail is the rule Page No.# 7/9

and committal to jail an exception. It was observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Likewise, in K.A. Najeeb (supra) observed that liberty guaranteed by Part-III of the Constitution covers within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. The Apex Court held that absence of possibility of timely trial and period of custody may be relevant grounds for releasing the accused on bail. In para 32 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram (supra) it has been held, inter alia, that likelihood of accused influencing the witness cannot be the ground to deny bail. In Sagar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in bail applications, despite serious nature of the charges, the same have to be balanced with other facts like the period of custody suffered and likely period within which the trial can be expected to be completed are also relevant considerations. The aforesaid view was followed /reiterated in principle in the order passed in Angela (supra). In Nimmagadda (supra), the Apex court held that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The court observed that the economic offences have deep rooted conspiracies 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. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principle for consideration in bail matters. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Virupakshappa (supra) held that the bail application cannot be allowed solely or exclusively on ground that the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that accused is presumed to be innocent until found guilty, but on appreciation of factual score and the settled parameters for consideration of bail.

14. Upon given a serious consideration to the well established broad balanced judicial approach to the bail matters, this court having taken into consideration of the factual Page No.# 8/9

situation of the instant case, which is apparently a socio-economic offence relating to cash for job of Sub-Inspector of Police (U.B.) in the Assam Police Department scam and where the investigating agency, after completion of investigation laid a charge-sheet under various sections penal provisions of law and the learned trial court has also accordingly on being satisfied framed charges against the accused Senior Police Officer, this Court is of the opinion that he is not entitled to be released on bail on the mere grounds of length of detention and his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. It may further be stated here that there is a long list of private persons, most of who are unemployed youths and who allegedly fell victim of corruption, prima facie, hatched by the accused and his co-accused person including senior police officials in the aforesaid recruitment test, his release on bail will certainly jeopardise a transparent and fair trial of the case, where not a single prosecution witness is examined till date and thus upon careful consideration of the facts in entirety as well as balancing the rights of both sides, the bail application stands rejected.

15. However, it is provided that the accused petitioner shall have liberty to approach the learned trial court for bail at an appropriate stage of trial of the case.

16. The learned trial court may consider for examination of the listed material witnesses such as the victim persons in order to ensure an early fair justice to both the sides.

With the above directions, the bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Page No.# 9/9

Comparing Assistant