High CourtsSingle Bench

Nitin Chauhan Alias Nitin Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 5 March 2024 · Citation: (2024) 03 UK CK 0010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 409, 420 · Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention Of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 — Section 3, 4 · Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 8
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
1st Bail Application No. 1364 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 586 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The Applicant-Nitin Chauhan alias Nitin Kumar is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3, Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand) and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in connection with the Case Crime No. 45 of 2023, registered at police station Kankhal, District Haridwar.

2.

Mr. Pradeep Singh Rana, the Inspector, received an information on 12.01.2023 that several persons were involved in a scam related to paper leak for the post of Patwari/Lekhpal. Therefore, an FIR (FIR No.12 of 2023) was registered. During the course of the investigation in FIR No. 12 of 2023, a register was recovered at the instance of co-accused Sanjeev Dubey. The said register contained the names of those students who were appearing in the Assistant Engineer / Junior Engineer examination. Several note books, educational certificates and two blank cheques of the students appearing for Assistant Engineer / Junior Engineer examination were recovered at the instance of a co-accused Rajpal. From these recoveries, it was revealed that Assistant Engineer / Junior Engineer examination papers were leaked.

3.

Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing and Ms Manisha Bhandari, learned Special Counsel for the State.

4.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been implicated in the present matter. He is an innocent person. Five co-accused persons have been granted regular bail by this Court.

5.

Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Advocate, has opposed the Bail Application. She has submitted that Rs.1,30,000/- (One Lac Thirty Thousand) and two blank cheques were recovered at the instance of the present applicant.

6.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, contended that the said recovered blank cheques do not belong to the applicant. The marriage of the applicant’s brother was solemnized on 15.01.2023. The said amount was kept in the house for the marriage of the applicant’s brother, which was recovered by the police.

7.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. He does not have any criminal antecedents. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation, and, applicant is in judicial custody since 03.02.2023.

8.

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.

9.

The Bail Application is allowed.

10.

Let the applicant – Nitin Chauhan alias Nitin Kumar 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 on 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.

11.

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.