Rajesh Thakur vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Sanjay Karol, J.—In this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner is seeking grant of bail from custody, in relation to FIR No. RC0962012S0007, dated 6.6.2012, under the provisions of Sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, CBI, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. Petitioner was arrested on 16.2.2013. His bail application stands dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 8.3.2013. Uninfluenced of the same, the present petition is being considered and disposed of on its own merits. In support of the petition, Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate has made the following submissions - (i) from the record, it cannot be said that petitioner is even remotely connected with or guilty of having committed an offence of forgery; (ii) the alleged forged documents were never used by the petitioner for obtaining employment; (iii) petitioner is in judicial custody for the last about ninety days; and (iv) petitioner, who is suffering from ailment, needs urgent medical treatment.

Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has opposed the petition, inter alia, on the ground that petitioner is involved in a heinous crime of forging documents and also using the same for the purpose of seeking public employment. He has manipulated and forged documents with respect to several persons, including his near relations, who also have obtained public employment. Petitioner is the Managing Director of the Educational Institute by the name of Thakur College of Education, Dhaliara, District Kangra and his co-accused Dilesh Kumar Singh is the Director of the said Institute. In relation to the same, petitioner and his co-accused have obtained permissions from statutory bodies/Government on the basis of forged documents. Investigation is not complete as it is required to be found out as to in how many cases, petitioner has actually forged or obtained forged documents. There is every likelihood of the petitioner influencing the witnesses, hampering the investigation and tampering with the record, which still needs to be recovered.

As per the case of the CBI, one Shri V.P. Ahluwalia, filed a complaint dated 22.4.2010, with the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Dharamshala, District Kangra, making certain allegations of forgery and cheating against the petitioner. Simultaneously, this complainant also filed CWPs No. 6453 of 2010 and 6454 of 2010, both titled as V.P. Ahluwalia versus State, which were decided on 3.5.2012 by a Division Bench of this Court. It appears that pursuant thereto the instant FIR was registered by the CBI.

Investigation revealed that petitioner, in connivance with his co-accused, allegedly obtained degrees, in different disciplines of educational courses, in his favour as also in favour of his brother Anuj Thakur, Yashbir Singh and sister Kiran Kumari from Magadh University, Bodh Gaya and also in favour of his another brother Barinder Singh from Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna. Based on the same, these persons applied for and obtained jobs in different Government educational institutions within the State of Himachal Pradesh. When the matter was investigated, it was found that the degrees were fake and as such, services of some of these persons were terminated.

Also, the present petitioner in connivance with his co-accused allegedly obtained false verification letters for the purpose of obtaining sanctions from the statutory bodies in order to run the aforesaid institute. The letters were not issued by or on behalf of the Government. Allegedly, co-accused of the petitioner, in conspiracy, impersonated himself as Dr. Sanjay, Personal Assistant to the Controller of Examinations, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya and not only received the letters from the Vigilance Department of the State but also replied to the same on behalf of the Controller of Examinations of the said University.

Still further, it is seen that there are various other specific allegations with regard to the alleged overt acts of omission and commission of the present petitioner.

The question as to whether the alleged acts of the petitioner fall within the scope of Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code is a matter which the investigating agencies are required to look into or the Court shall consider once final challan is presented in the Court.

At this juncture, prima facie, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioner. He has specifically not denied the factum of use of fake degree issued by Magadh University, Bodh Gaya in his favour.

Curiously, petitioner had two degrees for the same course and for the very same period. He could not have undertaken the same course in two distinct and distant educational institutions. Allegedly, since petitioner was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria stipulated under the Rules for appointment as a Lecturer (Commerce), he procured fake degree and used the same for getting Government employment.

At this stage, it cannot be said that the ratio of law laid down by the apex Court in Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, which has been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is applicable to the instant facts.

Petitioner and his family are running an Educational Institution. It needs to be investigated as to in how many cases, in connivance with the co-accused, petitioner arranged to obtain degrees in an illegal manner or forged the same for duping students of the State.

One cannot lose sight of the fact that Himachal Pradesh is having highest literacy rate, which has resulted into great unemployment in a white collar sector. Allegedly a large unemployed segment of youth has been deceived, as a result of illegal and nefarious acts of the petitioner.

Also, it has come on record that there has been financial transaction between the petitioner and his family members and his co-accused Dilesh Kumar Singh. Complete detail of all monetary transactions is yet to be collected.

All this can only be done if there is uninfluenced and unhampered investigation. Whether petitioner availed benefit by using the alleged fake degree for getting gainful employment or not is also a matter which needs to be examined by the investigating agency. That fact alone is not the allegation against him.

One cannot lose sight of the fact that in fact petitioner was gainfully employed at Government College, Dhaliara for more than five years (approximately). He submitted the alleged fake degree for his regular appointment. This was so done in the year 2011. Only when this Court intervened and the complaint was being investigated, petitioner withdrew such application for regularization.

Insofar as the issue of petitioner''s health is concerned, the matter can be looked into by the concerned medical officials. Ill health, by itself, cannot be a ground for release of the petitioner on bail, who is just 40 years of age and also his ailment is not such, which requires immediate hospitalization.

Petitioner is involved in a heinous crime and such like offences are rare in the State of Himachal Pradesh. At this juncture, it is neither desirable nor appropriate to allow the petition, as it might hamper free and fair investigation. Respondents are required to completely unearth the modus operandi and the extent of the operations carried out by the petitioner within and outside the State. His release may only influence the witnesses. Likelihood of the petitioner tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out, particularly when the petitioner, allegedly had used fake documents and remained in gainful Government employment for more than five years. There is deep rooted conspiracy, affecting public interest, which needs to be viewed seriously. His alleged conduct has also otherwise shaken confidence in the minds of the people, with regard to the degrees obtained by various unemployed youth of the State.

Petitioner''s confinement for ninety days has to be dealt with in accordance with law. Challan already stands filed.

While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.

Taking all the aforesaid facts into consideration as also the request of the CBI for further time for completion of investigation and filing the charge sheet, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the present petition is dismissed. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.

Petition stands disposed of.