Shivam vs Ut Of Ladakh
2023 Latest Caselaw 954 j&K

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 954 j&K
Judgement Date : 15 May, 2023

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Shivam vs Ut Of Ladakh on 15 May, 2023

                                                                       Sr.No. 13


               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                             AT JAMMU

                                                      Bail App No.135/2023

Shivam                                                        ....Appellant/Petitioner(s)

                    Through :- Mr. Nirmal Kotwal, Advocate

         V/s

UT of Ladakh                                                          ....Respondent(s)


                    Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DGSI

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE


                                      ORDER

15.05.2023

1. Through the medium of this application, the applicant seeks bail in

anticipation of arrest in a case registered vide FIR No.25/2023 for the

commission of offences punishable under Section 406, 409 408, 420, 120B IPC

and Section 65, 66-D and 43 of the IT Act registered at Police Station, Leh,

asserting that a false and frivolous case has been registered implicating the

applicant as well and that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation

of the case and undertakes that he will not tamper with any evidence or will not

try to win over the witnesses in the case. It has been submitted by the applicant

that he is apprehending his arrest and prayed that his application be accepted and

he be granted bail in anticipation of arrest in the aforesaid case.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been

falsely implicated in a case registered at the instance of one Pardeep Kumar, an

Observer of CBSE KVS Direct Recruitment Examination, 2023 alleging therein

that this examination had been tendered to M/S Aptech Ltd. which had been sub-

Bail App No.135/2023

let to M/S Tantray Online Service Private Limited, who had engaged GCOM , to

whom the applicant had been associated, as two of its official Adnan Ansari and

Diwarka Singh during the conduct of examination, 2023 for CBSE KVS had

installed software like „any desk‟ and „CC Proxy‟ for malpractices to affect the

results detrimental to the interests of the aspiring candidates.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant after arguing for some time submits

that the applicant shall be satisfied in case he is granted ten days‟ time to

approach the investigating agency at Leh and also to avail legal remedy for grant

of bail at Leh and submits that appropriate orders in this regard may be passed.

4. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI, who is incidentally present in the

Court appears on behalf of the respondent and has vehemently opposed the plea

raised by the applicant for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest asserting that the

applicant along with his co-accused who have been absconding since 21.02.2023

when the case was registered, already moved an application in this Court seeking

cancellation of warrants issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Leh in

terms of Section 25 of the Police Act, 1983 and that on 03.05.2023, this Court

had been pleased to stay the execution of the warrants for a period of ten days

from the date of the order i.e. 03.05.2023 with a further direction to the applicant

and others to present themselves before the Investigating Officer. He alleged that

all of them despite a clear direction from this Court to associate themselves with

the Investigation of the case had not complied with the order and applicant has

now come after about twelve days to seek bail in anticipation of arrest in the

matter. He opposed the grant of bail asserting that the applicant has been

dodging the investigation of the case and important evidence which is in the

shape of electronics devices used in the commission of the offences, may be Bail App No.135/2023

destroyed/ destructed by the applicant under the plea of seeking bail in

anticipation of arrest and not associating with the investigation of the case.

5. Heard and considered.

6. Hon‟ble Apex Court in a case titled "Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State

(NCT) of Delhi" reported as (2018) 12 SCC 129 has spelt out some of the

significant considerations which may be placed in the balance, in deciding

whether to grant bail. Para 18 of the judgment is profitable to be extracted for

ready reference as under:-

"18. While granting bail, the relevant considerations are:- (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii)

character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the

accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its

impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are

no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own

merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court."

7. Provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C is to save any innocent person from

his false implication and harassment. Since the matter regarding which the bail

in anticipation of arrest is being sought is with regard to conduct of investigation

of a case, wherein future of youth is involved and applicant along with other co-

accused has been charged to have tampered with the system of examination to

manipulate the results detrimental to the interests of aspiring unemployed youth

of Union Territory of Leh. Applicant and his accomplices are alleged to have

acted as a criminal racket to play with the career of unemployed youth aspiring

for job under a fair system of conducting examination to determine the merit.

8. Having regard to the aforestated reasons, since the accusations against

the applicant are serious and for recovery of electronic evidence, custodial

interrogation of all the accused is required. Therefore, in the considered opinion Bail App No.135/2023