Aalok Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail in FI.R. No.14/2025 dated 18.05.2025, registered at Police Station New Shimla, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 319(2) of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It has been asserted that the petitioner apprehends his arrest in the above mentioned F.I.R. He has been falsely implicated. He is innocent and has not committed any offence. As per the prosecution's story, a candidate bearing Roll No. 111231679 appeared in the Lab Assistant examination at DAV Public School, Sector-4, New Shimla. The photographs on the Aadhar card and the admit card were different and the signatures also did not tally. Hence, the matter was reported to the police, and Jatin Kumar was apprehended on the spot. The petitioner was not present at the examination centre on 18.05.2025. The petitioner is being implicated based upon the presumption of conspiracy. The offences mentioned in the F.I.R are punishable with imprisonment upto 07 years, and unnecessary arrest of a person is to be avoided as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satinder Kumar versus CBI, 2021(10) SCC 773. The co-accused has been granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court wrongly applied the provisions of the “Public Examinations” (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The examination being conducted in the present case did not fall within the definition of a public examination. The petitioner is the sole caretaker of his aged and ailing father. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the examination of the Lab Assistant was being conducted at DAV Public School, New Shimla, on 18.05.2025. Roll Number 111231679 was issued to Aalok Sharma (present petitioner). The photograph in the Aadhar card and the admit card, as well as the signatures, were different. The matter was reported to the police, and the police registered the F.I.R. The police arrested the person who identified himself as Jatin Kumar. The police also checked the CCTV footage and found that Jatin Kumar had appeared in place of the petitioner in the examination. The petitioner absconded and did not appear before the police despite the repeated directions issued to his mother. Hence, the status report.

I have heard Mr Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jatinder Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. 5. Mr Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him to the commission of a crime. The learned Trial Court wrongly invoked the provisions of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The offence under Sections 318(4) & 319(2) is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, and the petitioner is entitled to bail. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Jatinder Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State, submitted that Jatin Sharma had impersonated the petitioner. He had documents issued to the petitioner, which he could not have possessed without the petitioner’s complicity. These circumstances prima facie show involvement of the petitioner in the commission of a crime. The petitioner had tried to get public employment by impersonation, and such an offence should not be lightly viewed. He prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that arrest is a part of the investigation procedure. The power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be sparingly exercised. It was observed:

“69. Ordinarily, an arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre- arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice, and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes with the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule, and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.”

This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held:

“25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule, and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to a miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent, as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest, and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases.” 10. It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785 that the Courts should balance individual rights, public interest and fair investigation while considering an application for pre-arrest bail. It was observed:

“21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tightrope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.”

It was held in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, (2025) 4 SCC 493: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 that pre- arrest bail can be granted in exceptional circumstances where the Court is of the view that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case, and the presumption of innocence cannot be a reason to grant bail. It was observed on page 501:

“21. The parameters for the grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner-accused for the grant of anticipatory bail, and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.

In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy [CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 563], wherein this Court expressed thus: (SCC p. 465, para 34)

“34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.” (emphasis in original and supplied)

The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for the grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations that the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over-solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.

The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The status report shows that Roll No. 111231679 was allotted to the present petitioner. Another person appeared in the examination in place of the petitioner. There is a force in the submission of Mr Jatinder Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, that this was not possible without the petitioner’s involvement. Jatin Kumar could not have known the roll number of the petitioner and could not have obtained the admit card without it having been handed over to him. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner is involved in the commission of a crime.

The petitioner had, prima facie, abetted his impersonation in the examination of a Lab Assistant. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 518, that a person cheating in a public examination is not entitled to bail. It was observed:

“10. In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, each job that has a clearly delineated entry process, with prescribed examination and/or interview process, has only to be filled in accordance with it. Absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instils and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions are the ones who have deservedly been installed in such positions. Each act, such as the one allegedly committed by the respondents, represents possible chinks in the faith of the people in the public administration and the executive.

Since surely there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam, possibly affecting so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job, we concur with the view of the Trial Court that they are not entitled to the benefit of bail. At the same time, it is also true that every person has a presumption of innocence working in their favour till and unless the offence they are charged with is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Let them stand trial, and let it be established by the process of law that the respondent-accused has indeed not committed any crime in law.”

Therefore, in view of this binding precedent, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail.

It was submitted that the co-accused has been released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. This submission cannot be accepted because considerations for the grant of pre-arrest bail and regular bail are different, and no advantage can be derived from the fact that the co-accused has been released on regular bail.

It was submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment, and the petitioner should be released on bail. This submission will not help the petitioner because this Court is bound by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indraj Singh (supra), which forbids the grant of bail in case of impersonation in the public examination.

The investigation is continuing, and releasing the petitioner on pre-arrest bail will interfere with the fair investigation. Thus, the petitioner cannot be released on bail.

No other point was urged.

In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.