Ranjeet Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14388 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

.

Cr.MP(M) Nos.1511, 1512

& 1541 of 2023 Reserved on : 07.08.2023

Decided on :22.09.2023 _________________________________________________ (1) Cr.MP(M) No.1511 of 2023 Ranjeet Singh

....Petitioner Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh r ....Respondent

________________________________________________ (2) Cr.MP(M) No.1512 of 2023 Mukesh Bharti

....Petitioner Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent _________________________________________________

(3) Cr.MP(M) No.1541 of 2023

Ravi Kumar ....Petitioner Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent

Coram

.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________________________

For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in Cr.MP(M) Nos.1511& 1512/2023.

Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.1541/2023.

For the respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General.

________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge

Since in all these petitions filed under Section

438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners are

seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.07/2023, dated

17.06.2023, registered at Police Station SV &ACB Hamirpur,

District Hamirpur, H.P., under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of

the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and Sections 12, 13(1)(a) &

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ( for short, 'PC Act),

hence, these are being taken up together for adjudication.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per the

status report filed by the respondent-State, are that

consequent upon registration of FIR No.04/2022, dated

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

23.12.2022, under Sections 420, 120-B & 201, IPC and

.

Sections 7, 7A, 8 & 12 of PC Act with respect to leak of

question paper of Junior Office Assistant (Information

Technology) Post Code-965 from Himachal Pradesh Staff

Selection Commission (HPSSC), Hamirpur, an enquiry was

ordered to be conducted on 03.01.2023 of Post Code-970

(JE, CIVIL) by HPSSC, Hamirpur. During the course of

enquiry, the relevant record pertaining to Post Code 970 (JE

CIVIL) was procured from HPSSC Hamirpur and after

perusal of the record, it was found that HPSSC, Hamirpur,

vide advertisement No 38.2-2022, dated 24.05.2022, notified

12 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil), Post Code 970 on

contract basis and in response to the said advertisement,

5524 candidates appeared in the screening test which was

conducted at various examination centers in Himachal

Pradesh on 10.09.2022 and 1653 candidates remained

absent. Out of total candidates appeared in the test, 36

candidates were shortlisted vide screening test result dated

05.11.2022, but the final result had not been declared. During

enquiry, the record received from HPSSC Hamirpur, the bank

statements received from various banks and the interview of

.

the suspects revealed that Mukesh Bharti (petitioner in Cr.MP

No.1512/ 2023) had submitted online application for the Post

Code 970 (JE Civil), vide Application No. 4256233 dated

31.05.2022 under SC category, who appeared in the

examination under Roll No.970003275 at Government Boys

Senior Secondary School, Kullu. The documents verification

of all 36 shortlisted candidates, including petitioner Mukesh

Bharti, was scheduled for 25.11.2022 in the office of

HPPSSC Hamirpur and accordingly petitioner Mukesh Bharti

appeared for the same. After analysis of CDR, it was also

revealed that one Ravi Kumar (petitioner in Cr.MP(M)

No.1541/2023)) and petitioner Mukesh Bharti remained in

contact with each other during the schedule of examination

and the bank statements disclosed that an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/ was transferred on 01.09.2022 by one Ranjeet

Singh (petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.1511/2023), father of

petitioner Mukesh Bharti from his Account

No.88280100031979, maintained with HP Gramin Bank to

SBI Account No. 0242916223 of petitioner Ravi Kumar, just

nine days before the screening test, i.e on 10.09.2022, which

.

clearly revealed that petitioner Mukesh Bharti illicitly procured

the question paper of Post Code-970(JE Civil) and secured

first position (82/100), i.e highest marks among 36

shortlisted candidates as per tentative/final merit list. Hence,

the petitioners herein had hatched a criminal conspiracy and

cheated the general public and the Government. Thereafter,

on the basis of the inquiry report and the relevant record, the

FIR as detailed hereinabove was registered.

3. The bail applications have been filed by the

petitioners on the ground that they are innocent and have

been falsely implicated in the present case Learned counsel

for the petitioners contended that the investigation of this

case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered at the

instance of the petitioners and, as such, the petitioners are

required to be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate

General opposed the bail applications on the ground that

keeping in view, the gravity of the offence alleged to have

been committed by the petitioners, they are not entitled to be

.

enlarged on bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners

as well as the learned Additional Advocate General and also

gone through the record of the case.

6. It is a settled law that the anticipatory bail can be

granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court

is, prima facie, of the view that the petitioner has been falsely

implicated in the offence. Being an extraordinary remedy, it

should be resorted to only in a special case.

7. Although, it would be inappropriate to discuss the

evidence in depth at this stage, because it may influence the

trial Court, but the evidence collected during investigation,

prima facie, indicates the involvement of the petitioners in a

serious offence of leak of question paper of Junior Office

Assistant (Information Technology) Post Code-965 as they

had hatched a criminal conspiracy and cheated the general

public and the Government. The bank statements revealed

that on 01.09.2022, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ was

transferred by petitioner Ranjeet Singh, who is father of

petitioner Mukesh Bharti, to the bank account of petitioner

.

Ravi Kumar just nine days before the screening test, i.e on

10.09.2022, which prima facie reveals that petitioner Mukesh

Bharti had illicitly procured the question paper and secured

first position (82/100), i.e highest marks among 36

shortlisted candidates as per tentative/final merit list.

8. Once the allegations against the petitioners are

of such type, they cannot claim anticipatory bail as a matter

of right. It is a settled law that provisions for grant of

anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C., are not to be

mechanically applied. Nature and gravity of the offence, the

position and status of the accused with reference to the

victim and witnesses, likelihood of the accused fleeing from

justice, possibility of the accused tampering with the

evidence and larger public interest are some of the

considerations which must weigh with the Court while

deciding the application for grant of anticipatory bail. Liberty

of a citizen is indeed of a paramount importance, but at the

same time, fair and fearless investigation of case of a serious

nature is of no less importance. The Court shall refrain from

exercising its discretion in favour of the accused under

.

Section 438, Cr. P.C., if it adversely affects the investigation

and larger public interest.

9. The petitioners were granted interim bail,

however, as per the status report, they are not cooperating

with the investigating agency, as such, their custodial

interrogation is necessary for the proper investigation of the

case. The nature and gravity of the offence is serious as the

petitioners were found involved in a criminal conspiracy in

leakage of question paper and its sale in lieu of money. The

offence is against the society as a whole and the

investigating agency must get a chance to complete the

investigation and to unearth the scam.

10. In view of the serious nature of allegations

against them, a wall cannot be created between the

Investigating Agency and the petitioners-accused persons.

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of

the case as the investigation is still in progress,

grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is likely to

hamper the progress of the investigation. Hence, this

Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its

.

discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438, Cr.P.C. to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioners, as such, this Court is of

the view that the present anticipatory bail applications have

no merit and are liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the present bail applications are

dismissed. r

12. Before parting with this order, it is hereby clarified

that the aforesaid observations made in this order, have

been made only for the purpose of considering the present

petitions for anticipatory bail. Therefore, the same shall not

come in the way of the trial court for considering the

applications that may be filed by the petitioners for regular

bail or at the time of the trial and the trial Court concerned

shall not be influenced by the observations made

hereinabove.

                                                      ( Sushil Kukreja )
    September 22, 2023                                       Judge
             (VH)