Subodh Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sandeep Sharma, J

Bail petitioner-Subhodh Singh, who is behind bars since 27.5.2022 has approached this court, by way of instant proceedings for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 5, dated 7.5.2022 under Ss. 419, 420, 201 and 120B IPC registered at Police Station CID Bharari, Shimla.

Pursuant to order dated 181.1.2022, respondent-State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that the precise allegation against the bail petitioner is that he played active role in leaking question paper for the recruitment of Constables. It is alleged in the status report that the bail petitioner was contacted by the king-pin Bhagat Yadav for arranging for question paper for the post of Constable and thereafter, the bail petitioner contacted Sudhir Yadav, who at the relevant time was working in the printing press, where, the question papers were being printed. Though, Bharat Yadav is behind the bars but co-accused Sudhir Yadav stands enlarged on bail. Besides this, this court finds that 28 accused out of 30 accused named in the FIR stand enlarged on bail. At present, one of accused Kapil Puri is still absconding. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, because there is no evidence worth credence available on record suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioner ever contacted Sudhir Yadav for leaking question paper of Constable. He further submits that otherwise, investigation is complete and Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law, as such, no fruitful purpose shall be served by sending the bail petitioner behind the bars, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him.

Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing Challan in the competent court of law contends that nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Bhatnagar fairly admits that 28 out of 30 accused stand enlarged on bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that the precise allegation against bail petitioner is that he on the askance of main accused Bharat Yadav contacted Sudhir Yadav, who was in Printing Press, for arranging for question papers for the examination to the post of Constable. Whether the bail petitioner arranged the question papers in connivance with Bharat Yadav and Sudhir Yadav, is a question which needs to be ascertained by learned trial Court in the totality of evidence led on record by prosecution as such, it may he too premature at this stage, to conclude complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner in the commission of alleged offence. Leaving everything aside, all the accused including Sudhir Yadav, who in one way or the other helped in leaking question paper, already stands enlarged on bail, as such, this court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him.

Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh with one local surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:

(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.