IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Sunil Saini – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Bail Application Nos. 666, 1060, 1810, 1849, 1935 of 2023
Decided On : 22-02-2024
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 409, 420, 120B; Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, Sections 3, 4; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 8, 12 - The court emphasized the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, highlighting the importance of personal liberty and the conditions under which bail may be granted.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants are in judicial custody for their alleged involvement in a paper leak scam related to public examinations, facing charges under various sections of the IPC and specific acts aimed at preventing unfair means in examinations and corruption.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants had been in custody for a significant period, the charge-sheet had been filed, and there was no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, warranting the grant of bail.
Issues: Whether the applicants are entitled to bail considering the nature of the charges and the circumstances of their custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty and that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it.
Result: The Bail Applications are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
1. The present 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. 45 of 2023, registered at police station Kankhal, District Haridwar.
2. The applicant-Sunil Saini is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”), Section 3, Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 (in short “Act, 1998”) (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand) and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “Act, 1988”).
3. The applicant-Sudhir Kumar alias Satish Kumar alias Sushil Kumar is in judicial custody under Section 3, Section 4 of the Act, 1998 and Section 12 of the Act, 1988.
4. The applicant- Bhushan Singh is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC, Section 3, Section 4 of the Act, 1998, Section 7, Section 8 and Section 13 of the Act, 1988.
5. The applicant-Deependra Panwar alias Sonu is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC, Section 9, Section 10 of the Act, 1998, Section 8 and Section 12 of the Act, 1988.
6. The applicant-Manish Kumar is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Section 3, Section 4 of the Act, 1998, Section 7 and Section 8 of the Act, 1988.
7. These five Bail Applications have arisen from one case crime number i.e. Case Crime No. 45 of 2023, therefore, these five Bail Applications are being considered and decided by this common order. Record of the Bail Application No. 666 of 2023 is leading file.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Opposing the bail applications, Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned Special Counsel, submitted that on 12.01.2023, the Inspector-Pradeep Singh Rana received a secret information that several persons were involved in a scam related to paper leak for the post of Patwari/Lekhpal. Thereafter, an FIR (FIR No. 12 of 2023) was registered. During the course of the investigation in FIR No. 12 of 2023, on 22.01.2023, a register was recovered at the instance of Sanjeev Dubey (co-accused). The said register contained the names of those students who were appearing in the Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer examination. The note books, educational certificates, residence proof, castes certificates, employment certificates and two blank cheques of the students appearing for the AE/JE exam were recovered at the instance of the co-accused Rajpal. Some students were taken to Jose Country, Jwalapur and Laksar and were made to read the examination papers of AE/JE Examination, 2021. From these recoveries and the said information, it was revealed that the AE/JE exam papers were leaked.
10. Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned Special Counsel, further submitted that Rs. 1,20,000/- were recovered from the house of the applicant-Sunil Saini. The applicant-Sudhir Kumar alias Satish Kumar alias Sushil Kumar provided his residence for accommodating the students for being given and solving forthcoming examination question paper. The applicant-Deependra Panwar alias Sonu made Ms. Priyanka transfer Rs. 3,00,000/- in the account of one Ashish Anand from the account of her mother. The applicant-Manish Kumar took money to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the examinee-Rahul Saini. The applicant-Bhushan Singh made multiple copies of the examination paper of JE before the exam.
11. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present matter. There is no cogent evidence on record to connect the applicants with the alleged offence.
12. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate, has submitted that the applicant-Sunil Saini’s marriage took place on 07.12.2022 and he had money for his honeymoon, which was recovered by the police.
13. The applicant-Sunil Saini is in custody since 04.02.2023. Applicant-Sudhir Kumar alias Satish Kumar alias Sushil Kumar is in custody since 14.03.2023. Applicant-Bhushan Singh is in c
Bail is a fundamental right under Article 21, and its denial must be justified by compelling reasons.
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.
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 established that bail can be granted when there are no substantial grounds for continued detention, even in serious allegations.
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.
Grant of Bail - Scholarship scam - scholarship amount was deposited in the bank accounts of the concerned students and only tuition fee were transferred from the bank accounts of the concerned studen....
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of direct link of sale of question paper by the present applicant and the exercise of discretion in favor of the applicant.
Point of Law : Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detent....
Point of law : There is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that....
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.