IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Smt. Reetu - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Bail Application No. 1179 Of 2023 With Bail Application No. 1424 of 2023 With Bail Application No. 1744 of 2023 With Bail Application No. 1972 of 2023
Decided On : 06-03-2024
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Section 439, IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act, Public Examinations Act - The court discussed the provisions of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty, leading to the decision to grant bail.
Fact of the Case:
Four bail applications were filed for individuals in judicial custody related to a paper leak scam for a government examination, with charges under various sections of the IPC and specific acts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants had been in custody for an extended period without trial commencement and that there was no need for further custodial interrogation, thus granting bail.
Issues: Whether the applicants should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges and the duration of their custody.
Ratio Decidendi: Bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception; the court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the lack of necessity for continued detention.
Result: The bail applications are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) :
These four Bail Applications have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 12 of 2023, registered at police station Kankhal, District Haridwar.
2. The applicant-Smt. Reetu is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 411, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”), Section 9, Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 (in short, “Act, 1998”) (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand), Section 8 and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, “Act, 1988”).
3. The applicant- Sanjeev Prakash Chaturvedi is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 411, 420, 201, 120B IPC, Section 4, Section 5, Section 7, Section 10 of the Act, 1998, Section 7 and Section 13 of the Act, 1988.
4. The applicant- Sanjay Dhariwal is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 411, 420, 120B IPC, Section 9, Section 10 of the Act, 1998, Section 8 and Section 12 of the Act, 1988.
5. The applicant-Pramod Kumar Chauhan is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC, Section 3, Section 4, Section 9, Section 10 of the Act, 1998, Section 8 and Section 12 of the Act, 1988.
6. All these four Bail Applications have arisen from one case crime number i.e. Case Crime No. 12 of 2023, therefore, these four Bail Applications are being considered and decided by this common order. The file of the Bail Application No. 1179 of 2023 is leading file.
7. In brief, the prosecution’s case is that on 12.01.2023, Mr. Pradeep Singh Rana, the Inspector, received an information that several persons were involved in a scam related to paper leak for the post of Patwari/Lekhpal. The examinations for the post of Patwari/Lekhpal were conducted by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 08.01.2023. According to the First Information Report dated 12.01.2023, co-accused Rajpal Singh along with co-accused Sanjeev Kumar leaked the paper and sold to the candidates and received money from them. The First Information Report was registered against the applicants, Sanjeev Kumar Chaturvedi, Smt. Reetu and Pramod Kumar Chauhan and four other co-accused persons.
8. During the course of the investigation, it was found that on 05.01.2023, Smt. Reetu, the applicant and the applicant-Sanjeev Prakash Chaturvedi, the husband of Smt. Reetu, along with other co-accused persons went from Khanpur, District Haridwar to Delhi. Thereafter, Smt. Reetu along with other co-accused persons and six candidates went to a flat situated at Madhur Vihar, Dwarika, South Delhi, where, the said candidates were shown the question papers of the aforesaid examinations. The said locations of the applicant-Smt. Reetu are supported by her mobile phone details. During the course of the investigation, the names of the applicant-Pramod Kumar Chauhan and applicant-Sanjay Dhariwal came into light and from their possession leaked examination papers, heavy amount of cash, blank cheques, issued by candidates, were recovered.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present matter. They are innocent persons. All the allegations made against them are false, which the prosecution has to prove during the trial itself. Co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court. Applicants are not previous convicts. The charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.
10. On the other hand, Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned Special Counsel for the State, has opposed the bail applications. However, she has conceded that charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogations.
11. Applicants, Smt. Reetu, Sanjeev Prakash Chaturvedi and Sanjay Dhariwal, are the residents of District Haridwar, and, the applicant-Pramod Kumar Chauhan is a
The court established that prolonged detention without trial is unjustified, reinforcing the principle that bail is a right unless specific circumstances warrant denial.
The court reaffirmed the principle that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, particularly when the accused are not likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.
The court reaffirmed that bail is a right and should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, emphasizing personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.
Bail is a fundamental right under Article 21, and its denial must be justified by compelling reasons.
The court established that bail can be granted when there are no substantial grounds for continued detention, even in serious allegations.
Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during investigation is to secure their attendance, not punishment.
The court established that bail should be granted when there are no substantial grounds for detention, particularly when the accused has no prior criminal history and the investigation is complete.
The court established that bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the accused's prolonged detention is unjustified, emphasizing the right to a fair trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.