Mohit Rana vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 911 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.150 of 2021 Reserved on: 28.01.2021 Date of Decision: 04.02.2021

.

    Mohit Rana                                                         ...Petitioner.

                                         Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh                       ...Respondent.
    Coram:

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

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner:

For the respondent:

r to Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate.

Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate General, with Ms. Seema Sharma & Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Deputy

Advocates General and Mr. Manoj Bagga, Assistant Advocate General.

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

FIR Dated Police Station Sections No.

27 08.03.20 Dharampur, Distt. Solan, 420, 467, 468, 20 H.P. 471, 120-B and 201 IPC

Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

The petitioner, who is in Judicial Custody since 11th

January, 2020, on being arrested on the allegations of concealing

blank marks sheets of Manav Bharti University, with its wholly-solly,

Shri Raj Kumar Rana, has come up before this Court seeking regular

bail.

2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section

437 CrPC before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

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

Solan, District Solan, H.P.. on 19.01.2021, which was registered as

Case No.2-22 of 2021. However, vide order dated 23.01.2021, the

learned ACJM, Solan, District Solan, H.P., dismissed the petition.

.

3. The bail petition is silent about criminal history,

however, Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the bail

petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner has no criminal

past relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and

more, or when on conviction, the sentence imposed was more than

three years. The status report also does not mention any criminal

past of the accused.

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

the complaint of Himachal Pradesh Private Education Institutions

Regulatory Commission, the police registered the FIR, which led to

detection of a large number of fake marks sheets issued by Manav

Bharti University. After arresting the main accused, he was

interrogated, based on which, the Investigator got to know about the

involvement of the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner

are that he had concealed blank marks sheets, which were sent by

Raj Kumar Rana, on coming to know about police investigation.

Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned

above.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that

incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to

the petitioner and family.

6. While opposing the bail, the alternative contention on

behalf of the State is that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, such a

bond must be subject to very stringent conditions.

.

7. The possibility of the accused influencing the

investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and

the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing

elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5

SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually,

subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive

conditions.

8. The main accused, Raj Kumar Rana, stands released on

bail. One Sudha Pandey, who was also arraigned as an accused, on

the similar allegations, also got anticipatory bail on the ground that

initially allegations were attributed against her, but subsequently,

those were water-downed. The petitioner was, thus, almost similarly

placed as was the aforesaid Sudha Pandey. Given the fact that the

petitioner is already in Judicial Custody from 11th January, 2020, no

further incarceration is justified. Another reason for granting bail is

that in para-4 of the bail petition, it is pleaded that on coming to

know about the misdeeds of Raj Kumar Rana, the petitioner had

resigned from Madhav University of Rajasthan.

9. An analysis of entire evidence does not justify further

incarceration of the accused, nor is going to achieve any significant

purpose. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the stage of

the investigation and the period of incarceration already undergone

would make out a case for bail.

10. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the

.

petitioner makes out a case for release on bail.

11. Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to

the petitioner, subject to strict terms and conditions, which shall be

over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail

bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

12. In Manish Lal Shrivastava v State of Himachal

Pradesh, CrMPM No.1734 of 2020, after analysing judicial

precedents, this Court observed that any Court granting bail with

sureties should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety

bonds or give a fixed deposit, with a further option to switch over to

another.

13. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR

mentioned above, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rupees

Twenty-Five Thousand (INR 25,000/-), and shall furnish two sureties

of a similar amount, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate

having the jurisdiction over the Police Station conducting the

investigation, and in case of non-availability, any Ilaqa Magistrate.

Before accepting the sureties, the concerned Magistrate must satisfy

that in case the accused fails to appear in Court, then such sureties

are capable to produce the accused before the Court, keeping in mind

the Jurisprudence behind the sureties, which is to secure the

presence of the accused.

14. In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish aforesaid

personal bond and fixed deposit(s) for Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand

.

only (INR 25,000/-), made in favour of "Chief Judicial Magistrate,

District Solan, H.P.,"

a) Such Fixed deposits may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50%, or any of the stable private banks, e.g., HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, etc., with the clause of automatic renewal of principal, and liberty of the interest reverting to the linked

account.

b) Such a fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the account of the petitioner and need not be a single fixed deposit.

c) If such a fixed deposit is made in physical form, i.e., on

paper, then the original receipt shall be handed over to the concerned Court.

d) If made online, then its printout, attested by any Advocate, and if possible, countersigned by the accused, shall be filed, and the depositor shall get the online liquidation disabled.

e) The petitioner or his Advocate shall inform at the earliest to

the concerned branch of the bank, that it has been tendered as surety. Such information be sent either by e-mail or by post/courier, about the fixed deposit, whether made on paper or in any other mode, along with its number as well as FIR

number.

f) After that, the petitioner shall hand over such proof along with endorsement to the concerned Court.

g) It shall be total discretion of the petitioner to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the petitioner to apply for substitution of fixed deposit with

surety bonds and vice-versa.

h) Subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, if any, the entire amount of fixed deposit along with interest credited, if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor(s). Such Court shall have a lien over the deposits up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, or until discharged by substitution as the case may be.

15. The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed

acceptance of the following and all other stipulations, terms, and

conditions of this bail order:

a) The petitioner to execute a bond for attendance to the concerned Court(s). Once the trial begins, the petitioner shall not, in any manner, try to delay the proceedings, and undertakes to appear before the concerned Court and to attend the trial on each date, unless exempted. In case of an appeal, on

.

this very bond, the petitioner also promises to appear before the

higher Court in terms of Section 437-A CrPC.

b) The attesting officer shall, on the reverse page of personal bonds, mention the permanent address of the petitioner along

with the phone number(s), WhatsApp number (if any), e-mail (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available), and in case of any change, the petitioner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers,

WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, to the Police Station of this FIR to the concerned Court.

c) The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize,

make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person

acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.

d) The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as may be required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open

for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail. Whenever the investigation occurs within the police premises, the petitioner shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5 PM,

and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

e) In addition to standard modes of processing service of summons, the concerned Court may serve or inform the accused about the issuance of summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants the accused through E-Mail (if any), and any instant messaging service such as WhatsApp, etc. (if any). [Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, I.A. No. 48461/2020- July 10, 2020]:

i. At the first instance, the Court shall issue the summons.

ii. In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the specified date, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants.

iii. Finally, if the petitioner still fails to put in an appearance, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue Non- Bailable Warrants to procure the petitioner's presence and may send the petitioner to the Judicial custody for a

.

period for which the concerned Court may deem fit and

proper to achieve the purpose.

16. In case of non-appearance, then irrespective of the

contents of the bail bonds, the petitioner undertakes to pay all the

expenditure (only the principal amount without interest) that the

Government(s) might incur to produce him before such Court,

provided such amount exceeds the amount recoverable after

forfeiture of the bail bonds, and also subject to the provisions of

Sections 446 & 446-A of CrPC. The petitioner's failure to reimburse

shall entitle the trial Court to order the transfer of money from the

petitioner's bank account(s). However, this recovery is subject to the

condition that the expenditure incurred must be spent to trace the

petitioner alone, and it relates to the exercise undertaken solely to

arrest the petitioner in that FIR, and that voyage was not for any

other purpose/function what so ever.

17. Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose

presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall

explain all conditions of this bail order, in vernacular and if not

feasible, in Hindi.

18. In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as

violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty

due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the

petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after

taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial

Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to

modify or delete any condition.

.

19. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the

rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further

investigation per law.

20. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an

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

Court advert to these comments.

21. In return for the protection from further incarceration,

the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through

desirable behavior.

22. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order

for furnishing bonds. Any Advocate for the petitioner can download this order along with the case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer or the Court wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its

authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned

above.

Copy Dasti.

Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge.

February 4, 2021 (Bhardwaj)