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 is apprehending his imminent arrest on being arraigned as accused, 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 HP disclosing non-bailable offences, came up before this Court under section 438 CrPC, seeking anticipatory 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 soured 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. Mamta is fake.

(g) Jitender, who was an Advocate, filed repeated complaints to her employer, informing that M.A. Psychology Degree of Ms. Mamta is 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.

PREVIOUS CRIMINAL HISTORY

Neither the bail petition nor the status report refers to any previous criminal history of the bail petitioner.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submits that Manav Bharti University is a creation of statutes and works as per the Act. He further claims that the petitioner had been just a Chancellor of the University and in fact it is the Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Controller of Examination and other administrative staff of Manav Bharti University, who are responsible for its administrative functioning under the Act.

To the contrary, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, contended that this University was owned by Manav Bharti Trust which had only three members, one of whom, was the petitioner, another his wife and the third being his father-in-law, who has now expired. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, has shown the record to establish that Mr. Raj Kumar Rana, the petitioner, was the Chairman of the said Trust as well as the Chancellor of the University. Thus, what Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate implies is controverted because of the dual positions of the petitioner.

To prove the culpability of Raj Kumar Rana, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, has drawn my attention to one complaint, which reads as follows:

"No.: HP-PERC HPPERC/28/MBU-Vol V/2018-8690, dated 22/01/19

From

The Chairman,

H.P. Private Educational Institutions

Regulatory Commission, Shimla-171009.

To

The Director General,

Employment department, Haryana

Bay No.-55-58, Paryatan Bhawan, Sector-2, Panchkula.

Subject:- Written Complaint against Manav Bharti University, Solan for issuing Degree of MA Psychology (Registration No. RO9MPSY1800, Session (2009-11) to Ms Mamta Devi D/o Rajveer Singh without attending class or appear for any examination at Manav Bharti University, Solan.

Sir,

Please refer to your office letter No.-c-39 (CMW)

(Jagdeep)/910 dated 15.1.2019 on the subject cited above:

I am directed to convey that this office vide letter No.-HPPERC/28/MBU-Vol/2018-1872 dated 4.7.2018 has merely reiterated the facts, which were already written in your office letter No.-C-39(CMW)(Jagdeep)/16686- dated 18.6.2018, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the degree of Mrs. Mamta has been verified by the Manav Bharti University. The copy of said letter was also endorsed to the said University vide letter (even) No.-1873 dated 4.7.2018. Hence it shouldn't be misconstrued or misinterpreted otherwise also, because verifications of degree is done by the University concerned or Directorate of Higher Education, who maintain the records. The Commission being quasi-judicial body only adjudicate upon the matters on merit.

But, thereafter on the receipt of a complaint on this matter from Advocate Jagdeep Kumar, GOI, Tower-6, Malibu Town Gurgaon, Haryana, enclosing same copy of degree allegedly verified by Manav Bharti University alongwith information received by him through RTI on the courses which were allotted to said University during the referenced years, the Commission taking cognizance into the matter sought clarification on various joints alongwith legible authenticated copies of documents on affidavit from the Registrar Manav Bharti Univestity vide this office letter No. HPPERC/28/MBU-Vol V/2018-3164 dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure -A). The reminder was issued to the registrar of Manav Bharti University vide letter No. HPPERC/28/MBU-Vol V/2018-5304 dated 24.09.2018 (Annexure -B). In the mean time a letter from your office bearing letter No.-C-39(CMW)(Jagdeep)23248 dated 24.9.2018 was received to this Commission on 26.9.2018, wherein Commission observed the contradictory facts in the information provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of this Commission vis- a-vis degree verification report as submitted vide your earlier letter No-C-39(CMW)(Jagdeep)/16686- dated 18.6.2018. Hence being similar in nature both the complaints (i.e. complaint received from Advocate Jagdeep Kumar and from your office), Commission by linking both these complaints together issued another reminder to the Registrar, Manav Bharti University seeking more information/clarifications vide letter No HPPERC/28/MBU-Vol V/2018-5530 dated 5.10.2018 (Annexure-C) the copy of which was also endorsed to your office. In response to this office letter dated 5.10.2018, Manav Bharti University intimated the Commission vide it's office Letter No. MBU/HPPERC/2018/1197, dated 15.10.2018 that the University is investigating the matter internally and need some more time to answer all the queries raised by the Commission (Annexure-D). The Commission feeling dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the said University afforded last opportunity to the University to submit information vide letter No. HPPERC/28/MBU-Vol V/2018-7460 dated 24.11.2018 (Annexure-E). Then, Manav Bharti University vide letter No. MBU/HPPERC/2018/1349 dated 30.11.2018 again intimated to the Commission stating that the mater is under investigation with local police Station and the outcome of the investigation is still awaited. As soon as the Inquiry Committee finds out the fact about this case the University would apprise the Hon'ble Commission for the same (Annexure -F). The Commission observing the contradictory views of the University in the matter asked the Registrar of the University to submit a copy of FIR in this matter and further directed to file a specific FIR in local Police Station within three days, if it has not been registered earlier vide this office letter No HPPERC/28/MBU-Vol V/2018-7620 dated 7.12.2018 (Annexure-G). But on not receiving any response/report from the said University even after lapse of about one month, the Commission issued another reminder to Manav Bharti University vide this office letter No. HPPERC/28/MBU-Vol V/2018-7993 dated 7.01.2019 seeking confirmation report regarding lodging of specific FIR in the mater through return FAX/e-mail (Annexure-H). The Commission simultaneously issued a Notice to the Registrar Manav Bharti University vide Notice No.-HPPERC/28/MBU-Vol V/2018-7996 dated 8.01.2019 directing the Registrar to appear before the Chairman of the Commission on 09.01.2019 at 2:00 P.M. (Annexure-J). Then the Commission received an e-mail on 8.1.2019 (Annexure-K) from the said University intimating that acting Registrar is unable to attend the Commission tomorrow, due to her illness besides intimating Commission that the University has already filed a specific FIR in the matter as directed by this Commission. The letter of University No.-MBU/HPPERC/2019/30 dated 8.1.2019 addressed to the Secretary, HP-PERC (Annexure-L) and leter No-MBU/FIR/2018/30 dated 28.12.2018 addressed to Police Station Dagshai, Dharampur, HP (Annexure -M) were also attached with the aforesaid e-mail dated 8.1.2019. The Commission considering the documents submitted through mail by the University merely an information and can't be considered as copy of registered FIR summoned Registrar of the University before the Commission on 15.01.2019 alongwith required documents and appropriate reply in the matter through a 'Notice' issued vide No.-PPERC/28/MBU-Vol V/2018-8028 dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure -N). The acting Registrar, Ms. Anupama Thakur, who appeared before the Commission accompanied by Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Dean Faculty of Commerce was directed by the Chairman of the Commission to submit the jproper copy of FIR immediately after visiting the local Police Station. Then an e-mail dated 16.1.2019 from the University has been received to the Commission that proper FIR has been lodged with the concerned police station (Annexure-P) and a news article also published in regional (Solan) news of Amar Ujala on 17.1.2019 (Annexure-Q). The Commission finally received the copy of FIR (No.-0009/2019) registered in P.S. Dharampur, Distt Solan (H.P) on 15.01.2019 from the University (Annexure-R). Hence, after lodging of First Information Report (FIR) with the police all other details are immaterial. Similarly, when the said University has disowned the issuance of degree, then the said degree automatically becomes null and void and you may proceed further in the matter as being non existence.

This is pertinent to mention here that with continuous pursuance of the issues pertaining to the complaints received by the Commission, the sid University has been compelled to proceed further to lodge Complaint/FIR with the Police. It is also added that the Commission by taking cognizance in the matter has also initiated proceedings against Manav Bharti University under HP- Private Educational Institutional Regulatory Commission Act, 2010 for the dereliction and it's dilatory tactics by adopting double standard in communicating and dealing the matter.

Enclosed: - As above (19 pages)

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

Secretary,

HP-Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission.

Endst No.-(Even No.)                           Dated                                                               January, 2019

Copy forwarded to:-

The Secretary to the Governor of Himachal Pradesh for kind

information. This is in continuation to this office letter No-HPPERC/28/MBU-Vol-V/2018-5705 dated 23.10.2018.

The Advocate Jagdeep Kumar, GOI, Tower-6, Malibu Town Gurgaon, Haryana for information.

Secretary,

HP-Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission."

A perusal of the case file reveals that the persons, who had issued fake Degrees to Ms. Mamta, continued to be associated with the university till date in one capacity or the other. On knowing that many allegations of counterfeit Degrees are surfacing, the petitioner in the position of Head of the University as well as Trust would do is take out the rotten apple. Still, to the contrary, he continued to feed the black sheep.

Pre-trial incarceration needs to be justified depending upon the heinous nature of the offence, terms of the sentence prescribed in the Statute for such a crime, accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, and doing away with witnesses. The Court is under the Constitutional obligation to safeguard the interests of the victim, the accused, the society, and the State.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court holds in Para 30, as follows:-

"It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail."

Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate, has also made a number of other arguments, but given the fact that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the above-mentioned reasons, discussion of the same, will be an exercise in futility.

Any detailed discussions about the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the accused. Suffice it to say that to take the investigation to its logical end, the petitioner is not entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC. Furthermore, the conscience of this Court is satisfied that the question of grant of bail would arise only when the crucial aspects of the investigation stand completed, and only after the concerned Judicial Magistrate forwards the petitioner to the Judicial Custody.

The Bail Petition is dismissed.

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 Master/Secretary shall handover an authenticated copy of this order to the Counsel for the Petitioner, and to the Learned Advocate General, if they ask for the same.