Kendra Pal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No. 01 of 2020, registered at police station Vigilance Establishment Sector, Dehradun, District Dehradun.

The present applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 409, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case of the prosecution is that Mr. Pradeep Pant, the Inspector, Vigilance Sector, Dehradun lodged an F.I.R. on 08.01.2020 that he conducted an open inquiry regarding the rigging in the Gram Panchayat Development Officer Examination, 2016, in which, serious irregularities were found. The matter was investigated. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present applicant and the co-accused persons.

Heard Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Special Counsel for the State.

Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate, submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He is an innocent person. The charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant, however, no cogent or any reliable evidence has been found by the Investigating Officer during the investigation to connect the present applicant with the said crime.

On the other hand, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, contended that the role of present applicant is that co-accused Hakam Singh Rawat and co-accused Chandan Singh Manral had collected money from the candidates for getting them selected and handed over the said money to the present applicant. Present applicant had handed over the said money to the co-accused Rajesh Kumar Chauhan, who was the owner of the Company, RMS Techno Solution Pvt. Ltd. The RMS Techno Solution Pvt. Ltd was given contract to conduct the said examination.

Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Special Counsel, further submitted that as per the statements, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the present applicant was involved in manipulation of the OMR sheets.

Opposing the said submissions of Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Special Counsel for the State, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel contended that the present applicant had not received any money from any person. Prosecution has no evidence to connect the present applicant with the co-accused Rajesh Kumar Chauhan. Co-accused Hakam Singh and Rajesh Kumar Chauhan were granted bail by the Trial Court and the co-accused Chandan Singh Manral and Mukesh Sharma have been granted bail by this Court. Applicant is not a previous convict. He is in judicial custody since 05.11.2022. He is a permanent resident of District Bijnor (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding, and, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. 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 detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found 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 the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is allowed.

The applicant- Kendra Pal Singh is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

i) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.