Ms. Preeti Rajta vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application, u/s 438 Cr.P.C., for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 3/12 dated 7.1.2012 registered at Police Station, Sadar Shimla, under sections 419, 120B and 7/10 of H.P. Prevention of Malpractices at Universities, Boards and other Specified Examination Act, 1984. It has been stated that on account of above case the petitioner is apprehending her arrest in the above case. The allegation against the petitioner is that she has appeared in First Year English compartment paper held in September 2011 on behalf of Ms. Tara. The petitioner is innocent, she has committed no offence. The petitioner has been implicated in the case at the behest of influential persons. The allegations leveled against the petitioner are false. There is no legal evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. The petitioner is student of BSc first year. The petitioner is ready to join investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the complaint dated 5.1.2012 of Principal, Rajkiya Kanya Mahavidayala, Longwood, Shimla. It has been stated that a case of impersonation was detected on 13.10.2011 during BA-1 English paper. Preeti student of BSc (Medical) of the college appeared in English paper of BA-1 against Tara under Roll No. 975389. The case was detected by Dy. Superintendent Prof. L.S. Verma alongwith Superintendent Prof. Ruchi Ramesh. On this case was registered.

It has come in the investigation that on university admission form pertaining to Roll No. 975389 of Tara photograph of Preeti has been affixed with stamp of Lecturer Grade-I Govt. RGM College Nagar HP. On roll number slip also photograph of Preeti has been affixed and stamp marked. The father of Preeti has told that Tara had taken the photographs of Preeti and Tara got the photo attested. It has been stated that Tara has been released on bail on 24.2.2012. It has been stated that there is no college in H.P. which has been shown in the stamp on the admission form of Tara. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application.

Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that this is a serious case of impersonation made by the petitioner for helping Tara. In order to curb the tendency of impersonation in examinations, the anticipatory bail may not be granted. The accused Tara is the main beneficiary for whose benefit as per allegation of the investigating agency, the petitioner appeared in BA 1 English paper. Tara has already been released on bail. The alleged part played by the petitioner is also not less serious. However, it has been stated that now major part of the investigation is complete. The handwritings and signatures of the petitioner are to be taken. The case of the investigating agency appears to be documents based. It has not been stated in the status report that for some specific purpose custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail, u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

In view of above, the petition is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 3/12 dated 7.1.2012 registered at Police Station, Sadar Shimla, under sections 419, 120B and 7/10 of H.P. Prevention of Malpractices at Universities, Boards and other Specified Examination Act, 1984, the petitioner be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer with the conditions that petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when directed by the investigating officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner. The petitioner being a woman, therefore, she shall be interrogated strictly in accordance with law.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. Both the applications stand disposed of.