Raj Kumar Rana vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner is a Chancellor of Manav Bharti University, which is a private university constituted under Manav Bharti University (Establishment

and Regulation) Act, 2009, passed by H.P. Legislative Assembly. This University was formed by Manav Bharti Charitable Trust, of which the

Petitioner is a Chairman-cum-Trustee. Due to allegations of selling fake degrees by the University, the petitioner apprehended his imminent arrest and

after dismissal of his anticipatory bail, he was arrested in FIR number 22 of 2020, dated 3.3.2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and

120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, HP. Now he has come up before this Court under Section 439

CrPC, seeking regular bail.

The status report filed. I have heard Counsel for the parties and seen the status report(s) as well as the police file to the extent it was necessary for

deciding the present petition. The police file returned through the Counsel appearing for the State.

The counsel for the petitioner states that the accused had joined the investigation as and when the Investigating Officer so directed. Learned

Additional Advocate General did not dispute this averment.

FACTS

(a) The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is that on 3.3.2020, Police Station, Dharampur, received a complaint forwarded by the

Superintendent of Police, Solan, which was at the instance of one Ms. Mamta, R/o Haryana. In her complaint, she wanted criminal action against

Manav Bharti University, on the allegations that the said University duped her by giving her a forged Degree. In her complaint, she stated that after

completing her Graduation, she wanted to do Post Graduation in Psychology. In this endeavor, she used to keep on looking at the advertisements and

other sources to apply for admission in M.A. Psychology. She came across advertisements by Manav Bharti University, which claimed that they

offered all courses of M.A. After discussing this with her husband and a person named Atul Sharma, who was known to her husband, they searched

on the website of Manav Bharti University about the course of M.A. Psychology. After that, the said Atul Sharma made a phone call to the Manav

Bharti University after getting its number from the website of the University. The person who took the said call told him to meet at their Karnal Study

Centre and further said that admissions are open. Getting inspired by Mamta, the said Atul Kumar also made up his mind to do Law from Manav

Bharti University.

(b) After that, they went to the Study Centre of Manav Bharti University at Karnal, Haryana, and there they met Mr. Raj Kumar Rana (present bail

petitioner), who claimed himself to be the owner of the University. Mr. Raj Kumar Rana told them that they have M.A. Psychology two-year course

at their University, and the fee for such course was INR 50,000/-. He further assured Ms. Mamta that her classes and examination would take place

in Karnal. He explained to them that their Campus at Solan, is under construction and due to that reason, the authorities have permitted them to take

classes and examinations in Karnal itself.

(c) Consequently, Ms. Mamta handed over INR 50,000/- and got herself enrolled for the M.A. Psychology course. During both years of her M.A.

course, she attended the classes, practical’s, and examinations in Karnal. Two months after appearing in the final examination, she received her

Degree at Karnal.

(d) On 25.4.2012, Mamta telephonically contacted the University that she needs to get her Degree verified from the University. On this, the call

attendant told her to prepare a Demand Draft of Rs.250/- in the name of the University. After that, she sent a Demand Draft drawn in favor of the

Manav Bharti University dated 21.5.2012. After a couple of weeks, she received a Verification Certificate dated 4.6.2012 from the University,

claiming the Degree to be genuine.

(e) Based on this Certificate, Ms. Mamta applied for the Post of Assistant Employment Officer with Haryana Public Service Commission, and finally,

she got selected for such a post.

(f) The twist in the tale came when the relationship of Ms. Mamta got sour with Jitender, who was her brother-in-law being the husband of her sister.

The said Jitender, who practiced as an Advocate, filed a complaint to her employer, alleging that her father-in-law had told her that the Degree of Ms.

Mamata was fake.

(g) Jitender, filed repeated complaints to her employer, informing that M.A. Psychology Degree of Ms. Mamta was fake. He further complained that

the University had no sanction to undertake the course of M.A. Psychology. Upon this, the Deputy Director of the Employment Department of

Haryana again sought verification of the Degree of M.A. Psychology of Ms. Mamta and the University. The letter, which is dated 6.9.2016, informed

her that such a Degree is genuine as per its records.

(h) After that, Ms. Mamta claims herself to have lost her Degree and to obtain a duplicate Degree, she visited the University Campus and on

7.5.2016, got a duplicate Degree after depositing Rs.1,500/- fees. She further claimed that the original and the duplicate Degrees supplied by Manav

Bharti University were not genuine. Ms. Mamta also forwarded a large number of documents to corroborate her allegations made in her complaint.

Based on this information, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above, and the Investigating Officer also searched the premises of Manav Bharti

University, Lado, Sultanpur, District Solan.

Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajesh Verma and Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner, submits that

Mamta lodged the present FIR with a view to create defence in the criminal proceedings pending against her for using fake degrees. To substantiate

his contention, he has handed over copy of one memo from the C.M.Window Action Taken Report-Haryana, bearing no. 39/12767 dated 17-05-2018.

Mr. Chandel further submits that complainant Mamta was also in possession of fake degrees of B.Ed. which was not from Manav Bharti University

related to the petitioner.

To the contrary, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, has opposed the bail, on various grounds, primarily that the petitioner is a flight risk

because he had already shifted his family members to Australia.

A bare reading of memo from the C.M.Window Action Taken Report- Haryana, bearing no. 39/12767 dated 17-05-2018 reveals that concerned

University, did not have the record of the degree obtained by Mamta for her B.Ed/CPEd. It is not the case of the State of HP that this B.Ed/CPEd

degree was also issued by Manav Bharti University, against which the main allegation is of selling fake degree of MA Psychology.

As far as contention of learned Advocate General of flight risk is concerned, the petitioner is also in custody in the main case and cannot be

released from prison unless he gets bail in the main case. To clarify, it shall be open for the State to raise the said point in the bail petition of the main

case.

Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to strict terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and

irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

Following the decision of this Court in Abhishek Kumar Singh v. State of HP, Cr.MP(M) No. 1017 of 2020, the petitioner shall be released on bail

in the FIR mentioned above, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One Lac only (INR 1,00,000/-), and shall either furnish two sureties of a

similar amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Ilaqua Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/the Court exercising jurisdiction over the

concerned Police Station where FIR is registered, or the aforesaid personal bond and fixed deposit(s) for Rs. One Lac only (INR 1,00,000/-), made in

favour of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, H.P., from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50%, or any of the stable private

banks, e.g., HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, etc., with the clause of automatic renewal of principal, and liberty of the interest

reverting to the linked account. Such a fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the account of the petitioner. If such a fixed deposit is made

manually, then the original receipt has to be deposited. If made online, then the copy attested by any Advocate has to be filed, and the depositor shall

get the online liquidation disabled. It shall be total discretion of the petitioner to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. During the trial's

pendency, it shall be open for the petitioner to apply for substitution of fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa. Subject to the proceedings

under S. 446 CrPC, if any, the entire amount of fixed deposit along with interest credited, if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor(s). The

Court shall have a lien over the deposits until discharged by substitution, and otherwise up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC,

1973.

The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of the following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:

a) The petitioner to give security to the concerned Court(s) for attendance. Once the trial begins, the petitioner shall not, in any manner, try to delay

the trial. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the concerned Court, on the issuance of summons/warrants by such Court. The petitioner shall

attend the trial on each date, unless exempted, and in case of appeal, also promise to appear before the higher Court, in terms of Section 437-A CrPC.

b) The attesting officer shall mention on the reverse page of personal bonds, the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number(s),

WhatsApp number (if any), email (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available).

c) The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer. Whenever the investigation takes

place within the boundaries of the Police Station or the Police Post, then the petitioner shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5

PM. The petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree methods, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

d) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as may be required, and in the event of failure to do so, it will be open for

the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail granted by the present order.

e) The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police

officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to

tamper with the evidence.

f) In addition to standard modes of processing service of summons, the concerned Court may serve the accused through E-Mail (if any), and any

instant messaging service such as WhatsApp, etc. (if any). [Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo

Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, I.A. No. 48461/2020- July 10, 2020].

g) The concerned Court may also inform the accused about the issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants through the modes mentioned above.

h) In the first instance, the Court shall issue summons and may send such summons through SMS/ WhatsApp message/ E-Mail.

i) In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the specified date, then the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants, and to enable the

accused to know the date, the Court may, if it so desires, also inform the petitioner about such Bailable Warrants through SMS/ WhatsApp message/

E-Mail.

j) Finally, if the petitioner still fails to put in an appearance, then the concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable Warrants to procure the petitioner's

presence and send the petitioner to the Judicial custody for a period for which the concerned Court may deem fit and proper to achieve the purpose.

k) In case of non-appearance, then irrespective of the contents of the bail bonds, the petitioner undertakes to pay all the expenditure (only the principal

amount without interest), that the State might incur to produce him before such Court, provided such amount exceeds the amount recoverable after

forfeiture of the bail bonds, and also subject to the provisions of Sections 446 & 446-A of CrPC. The petitioner's failure to reimburse the State shall

entitle the trial Court to order the transfer of money from the bank account(s) of the petitioner. However, this recovery is subject to the condition that

the expenditure incurred must be spent to trace the petitioner alone and it relates to the exercise undertaken solely to arrest the petitioner in that FIR,

and during that voyage, the Police had not gone for any other purpose/function what so ever.

l) The petitioner shall intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, within thirty

days from such modification, to the Police Station of this FIR, and also to the concerned Court.

m) The petitioner shall abstain from all criminal activities. If done, then while considering bail in the fresh FIR, the Court shall take into account that

even earlier, the Court had cautioned the accused not to do so.

n) In case of violation of any of the conditions as stipulated in this order, the State/Public Prosecutor may apply for cancellation of bail of the

petitioner. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial and also after that in terms of Section 437-A of the CrPC.

o) During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats the offence or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is seven years or more,

then the State may move an appropriate application for cancellation of this bail.

The learned Counsel representing the accused and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all

conditions of this bail order to the petitioner, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi or English.

In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for

modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even before the Court taking

cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency, from further investigation in accordance

with law.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The Court attesting the bonds shall not insist upon the certified copy of this order. Any Advocate for the petitioner may download this order from

the website of this Court, and attest it, which shall be sufficient for furnishing bonds and the record. The Court Master shall handover an authenticated

copy of this order to the Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Advocate General if they ask for the same.

The SHO of the concerned Police Station or the Investigating Officer shall arrange to send a copy of this order, preferably a soft copy, to the

victim, at the earliest.

The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, are closed.