Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 231 (CHH)

HIMANI TIWARI v. STATE OF C. G.

2008-08-29

DHIRENDRA MISHRA

body2008
ORDER Shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. :- 1. The applicant has preferred this application for grant of bail as she apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No. 92/2008 registered in Police Station House Bamhanidih, for offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120(b) of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Examination Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant, IS years old girl, was regular student of Class-10 in the Government R.K.K. Higher Secondary School, Semaria. She appeared in the High School Examination, 2008 conducted by the Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal (for short 'the Board') and stood 3rd in the merit list in the whole of the State. On suspicion, the Board appointed Shri R.N. Vishvakarma, Registrar, to conduct enquiry in the matter vide order dated 2-6-2008 whereupon Shri Vishvakarma conducted discreet enquiry and submitted his report on 9-6-2008 and concluded that 95 blank answer books having one serial number were found double. Whereabouts of the answer books, serial number of which is mentioned before roll number of the applicant in the attendance register and sitting arrangement sheet requires intensive investigation. The applicant claims handwriting in the answer books to be of her. However, there is a difference in the handwriting of answer books and the statements written by her before the Enquiry Officer. Centre Head, R.S. Rathore, his Deputy Ramgopal Khunte, Clerk Ganesh Ram, who were connected with the examination, P.S. Kashyap and Prabhat Chand and student and her guardians, prima facie, appeared to be involved in the offence and, therefore, report should be lodged against them. 3. On the basis of report of the Enquiry Officer, Bal Kishan Choudhary lodged a report on 14-6-2008 as per written communication dated 13-6-2008 of the Board. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a minor girl aged IS years. She appeared in the examination conducted by the Board. After appearing in the examination she had no control whatsoever over the custody of the answer books, its dispatch to the Board and from there to the Valuer. In the application for anticipatory bail, learned Sessions Judge has not assigned any reason for rejecting her application, as no evidence of any conspiracy between the applicant and other accused persons has been pointed out. In the application for anticipatory bail, learned Sessions Judge has not assigned any reason for rejecting her application, as no evidence of any conspiracy between the applicant and other accused persons has been pointed out. Refining to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000, it was argued that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to bring her into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. However, this aspect has not been considered by learned Sessions Judge while rejecting her application by the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the bail application contended that the matter is at the initial stage of investigation. From the evidence collected so far, prima facie, it has been found that answer books of the applicant were written by other persons. There is interpolation in the attendance register and on enquiry, Enquiry Officer has found that prima facie evidence of forging of answer sheets and offence has been committed in conspiracy with the applicant.' her father and other persons engaged in conduction of examination in the centre. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused enquiry report as also case diary. Taking into consideration that the applicant is a minor girl aged 15 years and keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 7. In the result, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, she shall be released on bail on her natural guardian executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. In the result, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, she shall be released on bail on her natural guardian executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on further conditions that her natural guardian ensures that: (i) She shall co-operative in the investigation and make herself available for interrogation by a police officer, as and when required; (ii) She shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) She shall not leave the State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of the trial Court, This order shall remain in force for a period of 2 months from today, In the meanwhile, the applicant may apply for regular bail before the Juvenile Justice Board,' Bail Granted.