Monu Singh Jamwal vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 849 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 121 of 2021 Reserved on: 27.01.2021.

.

Date of Decision: Feb 4, 2021.

    Monu Singh Jamwal                                            ...Petitioner.





                                Versus

    State of H.P.                                              ...Respondent.





    Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1NO _____________________________________________________________

For the petitioner: Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate.

For the respondent: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Senior Assistant Advocate General and Mr.

Manoj Bagga, Assistant Advocate General.

                           THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

        FIR     Dated         Police Station                     Sections





        No.
        27      8.3.2020      Dharampur,           District 420, 467, 468,
                              Solan, HP                     471 and 120B





                                                            of IPC

    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

For selling and marketing fake degrees in Manav Bharti

University in connivance with its wholly-soly, Raj Kumar Rana and

now having been arrested, the petitioner has come up before this

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail on the ground

that the main accused Raj Kumar Rana stands released on bail.

.

2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed petitions under Section

437 CrPC before the concerned JMIC. However, vide orders dated

24.12.2020 and 16.01.2021 learned JMIC dismissed the same. The

petitioner had also filed bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C

before the concerned Sessions Judge, however, the same was

withdrawn by the petitioner.

3. In Para 14 of the bail application, the petitioner declares

having no criminal history.

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that a

complaint was filed by Himachal Pradesh Private Education

Institutions Regulatory Commission and the investigation detected a

huge fake degree scam. After that police arrested Chairman of

Manav Bharti University, Shri Raj Kumar Rana, and others officials.

Later on, the State Government constituted a Special Investigating

Unit and also proceeded to conduct forensic audit of the University

and Administrator to run its affairs. The petitioner has also been

arrested in the aforesaid FIR.

5. Mr.Vipin Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner argues

that the main accused is released on bail, as such, there is no point

for detaining the co-accused.

6. On the contrary, the State contends that the main

accused was released on bail after undergoing 5-6 months'

incarceration and in case the petitioner is released on bail, he would

destroy the evidence as he is kingpin. The State further contended

.

that it was with great difficulty, the SIU was able to arrest the

petitioner on 17th September, 2020 and he was sent to judicial

custody on 26th December, 2020. She says that the investigator may

need his police custody for remaining five days, for which, they are

legally entitled. She further contends that Police have collected

sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner and the co-accused.

7. The investigation qua the petitioner is at crucial stage

and given the previous conduct of the petitioner that he had

absconded and despite obtaining protection, failed to join the

investigation, hence, he is not entitled for bail at this stage.

8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner referred to certain

statements and memos from the police report, prepared under

section 173(2) CrPC, copies of which the accused had duly received in

compliance to S. 207 CrPC. However, the documents which the Ld.

Counsel referred were neither filed with the petition, nor its copies

supplied to the Court and the State. Thus, the Court cannot base any

finding on a document in the Counsel's brief and not on Court's file.

9. Counsel for the petitioner has also made several other

arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on

the reasons mentioned above, discussion of the same will be an

exercise in futility. Any detailed analysis of the evidence may

prejudice the case of the prosecution or the accused.

10. Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to

this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail.

.

The petition is dismissed. The state may seek police custody for

further investigation, if they wanted to do so within 15 days from

today. Failure to do so, shall be the factor that the State does not

need custodial investigation of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be

at liberty to file fresh petition after two weeks before this Court or

trial Court.

    11.              Any   observation
                           r             made     hereinabove       is    neither      an

expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial

Court advert to these comments.

The petition is dismissed.

Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge.

February 4, 2020 (R.Atal)