Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 216 (HP)

SUMER NATH SHARMA v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-08-04

M.R.VERMA

body2003
JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J. (Oral): - Since these four petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail arise out of the same F.I.R. therefore, are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of these applications are that F.I.R. No. 3 of 2002 dated 24.9.2002 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(i)(B) and (D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been registered against the petitioners/accused (hereafter referred to as the accused’) and another in Police Station, Anti Corruption Zone, Bilaspur. The allegations against the accused and their co-accused Meena Soni are that co-accused Meena Soni had studied up to 7th or 8th standard. However, on production of a forged matriculation certificate she secured a job in Electricity Department as a Clerk. For securing the fake matriculation certificate she procured the original certificate of one Meena Soni (since deceased) daughter of Hans Raj in collusion with Satish Kumar brother of the deceased and on the basis thereof procured a duplicate fake certificate under reference after hatching conspiracy with the accused persons. The fake certificate is dated 22.9.1999 which has been prepared by accused Nek Ram, checked by accused Rajeev Mahajan and Het Ram Sharma and has been signed by accused Sumer Nath Sharma. While preparing the records about the issue of the fake certificate parentage of accused Meena Soni has been changed. The factual position found during investigation is that accused Meena failed in 8th class in the year 1980 and thereafter she left the School. To connect her with the certificate of the deceased she filed false application and thus the accused and co-accused pursuant to a conspiracy prepared a fake certificate and forged the official records. Investigation in the matter is still on. Accused Meena Soni had been arrested on 17.7.2003 and was released on bail by the Special Judge, Bilaspur on 19.7.2003. The. accused persons apprehending their arrest in the case have moved the present applications for their release on anticipatory bail on the grounds that they have been arrayed as accused one year whereas they have not committed any offence and their formal arrest is in no way required. 3. The. accused persons apprehending their arrest in the case have moved the present applications for their release on anticipatory bail on the grounds that they have been arrayed as accused one year whereas they have not committed any offence and their formal arrest is in no way required. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused persons and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the police report and the investigation records. 4. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused persons that the accused are innocent and have not committed any offence and they have acted on the directions of the Secretary of the Board and have nothing to do with the issue of the fake certificate. It was also contended that they are ready and willing to join investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required. Therefore, they deserve to be released on anticipatory bail. To substantiate his contentions, the learned Counsel for the accused persons has relied on Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. Sate of Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC 372 and Jeet. Ram v. State of H.P., LHLJ 2003 (HP) 24: 2004(2) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) 417. 5. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate General has contended that the accused are part of a racket involved in indulging in the activities as complained against and thereby have perverted the functioning of the Education Board and their custodial interrogation to unearth the criminal activities, in which they are involved, is essential required. It was also contended that the accused having been called.-to join investigation have not joined the investigation which is an additional factor for refusing bail to the accused who had failed to submit to the authority of law without any reason. 6. A perusal of the record prima facie shows involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the offences alleged to have been committed by them. The gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by them and the severity of punishment, therefore, is undisputable. Once the allegations are of this type, the accused cannot claim anticipatory bail as of right as the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail is to save innocent persons from embarrassment, harassment and humiliation by effecting their arrest. The gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by them and the severity of punishment, therefore, is undisputable. Once the allegations are of this type, the accused cannot claim anticipatory bail as of right as the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail is to save innocent persons from embarrassment, harassment and humiliation by effecting their arrest. This is not a case wherein for any reason whatsoever false accusations might have been levelled against the accused merely to humiliate and harass them. They have been part and parcel of the institution which is expected to work in an honest manner keeping in view the merits and demerits of a candidate as appears from his performance in the examination and not to assign the merit of one to the other and thereby enable people to secure jobs resulting in injustice to deserving people. The allegation that the accused are operating as a rackat is of the nature which requires a thorough probe into the working of the Board and custodial interrogation of the accused to bring to surface the illegal activities in which they have been indulging. 7. The accused are officials of the Board and thus in view of their contacts with other employees and their knowledge of procedure adopted by the Board in its working, the possibility that if released on bail, the accused will tamper with the prosecution evidence cannot be ruled out. 8. The contention for the accused that they have acted on the direction of the Secretary of the Board is of no help to them, Command of the superior to do an illegal act is no defence in a criminal case. 9. It clearly emerges from records and is not disputed for the accused that vide office order dated 25.7.2003 the accused persons were directed to remain present before DSP, AC Zone, Bilaspur on ,26.7.2003 at 10 a.m. sharp to join the investigation in the case. The accused, however, admittedly did not join the investigation as required. Thus, the accused have not only failed to abide by the law but have also acted in a manner from which the inference that if released on bail they will not join investigation can be readily inferred. 10. The accused, however, admittedly did not join the investigation as required. Thus, the accused have not only failed to abide by the law but have also acted in a manner from which the inference that if released on bail they will not join investigation can be readily inferred. 10. In Bhagirathsinh Judejas case (supra) relied for the accused, the Honble Supreme Court was dealing with the question as to under what circumstances a bail once granted under Section 439 Cr. P.C. can be cancelled and observed that even where a prima facie case is established the approach of the Court in the matter of the bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with the evidence. 11. Similarly, in Jeet Rams case (supra) this Court held that mere gravity of offence and severity of punishment is no ground to reject bail. Likelihood of absconding and tapering with the prosecution evidence has to be seen. Evidently, this case Saw is of no help to the accused persons inasmuch as they are not only shown to have indulged in the commission of grave offences for which severe punishments are provided by law but their custodial interrogation is required to bring to surface the illegal activities in which they had been indulging as employees of the Board and there is possibility of their tampering with the prosecution evidence and not joining the investigation if released on bail. 12. In view of the above discussion, the accused persons are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 13. As a result, all these petitions merit dismissal and are accordingly dismissed.