Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1530 (GAU)

MANAS PRATIM HALO v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-10-11

MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2018
JUDGMENT : MIR ALFAZ ALI, J. 1. All these applications are made under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail by the petitioners, namely, 1. Pallavi Sarma, 2. Dwithun Borgayari @ Borgayary, 3. Susovan Das, 4. Mustafa Ahmed Barbhuiya and 5. Manas Pratim Haloi, 6. Moon Mazoomdar, 7. Deepsikha Phukan, 8. Gulshan Daolagupu, 9. Bhargav Phukan, 10, Rhituraj Neog, 11. Monika Teronpi, 12. Smt. Barnali Dev, 13. Leena Krishna Kakati, 14. Manzoor Elahi Laskar and 15. Saibur Rahman Barbhuiya, who are in detention in connection with Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016 under Section 7/13(1)(a)(b)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, R/W Section 120(B)/420/463/468/471/201 IPC. 2. An FIR was lodged by one Dr. Angshumita Gogoi on 29.06.2016 alleging inter alia that one Naba Kanta Patir contacted her and assured to provide a job through Assam Public Service Commission (for short APSC) on payment of money and demanded Rs. 10,00,000/-. She immediately informed the matter to Dibrugarh police and while receiving the said amount by Naba Kanta Patir from her, the police arrested him. During investigation, it came to the light that said Naba Kanta Patir was running a network in connivance with others and collected money for providing job through APSC and in the course of investigation, a huge scam of job for cash by APSC came into light. During continuation of the investigation, various persons being candidates appearing in the APSC examination as well as office bearers of the APSC including its Chairman Rakesh Pal and other members were arrested. A charge sheet was filed on 24.01.2017 against 10 accused persons, including Chairman of the APSC, Rakesh pal. Even after filing of the charge sheet on 24.01.2017, further investigation continued and 7 (seven) supplementary charge-sheets have been filed till now. Bail petitions filed by the petitioners, were rejected by the learned Special Judge. 3. The present petitioners, Manash Pratim Haloi was arrested on 20.02.2018, Dithun Daimary was arrested on 08.11.2017, Barnali Devi was arrested on 28.03.2018, and the rest of the petitioners, namely Susovan Das, Pallavi Sarma, Moon Mazoomder, Monika Teronpo, Ms. Deepsikha Phukan, Saibur Rahman Barbhuiyan, Gulshan Daolagupu, Bhargav Phukan, Ritu Raj Neogo, Smt. Leena Krishna Kakati, Manzoor Elahi Laskar and Mustafa Ahmed Barbhuiya were arrested on 18.07.2018. Deepsikha Phukan, Saibur Rahman Barbhuiyan, Gulshan Daolagupu, Bhargav Phukan, Ritu Raj Neogo, Smt. Leena Krishna Kakati, Manzoor Elahi Laskar and Mustafa Ahmed Barbhuiya were arrested on 18.07.2018. Charge sheet against Dithun Bargayari along with some others accused persons was submitted on 04.01.2018 by way of second supplementary charge sheet, charge sheet against Manash Pratim Haloi along with others were submitted on 19.04.2018 by way of third supplementary charge sheet. Charge-sheet against Barnali Devi was submitted as 5th supplementary charge-sheet on 24.05.2018 and rest of the above petitioners appeared in the 6th supplementary charge sheet filed on 14.09.2018. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned counsel Mr. U.K. Barman, learned counsel Mr. N. Dhar, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. D. Das, learned counsel Mr. S. Das, learned counsel J.I. Barbhuiyan, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned counsel Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel Ms. M. Saikia, learned counsel Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, assisted by Mr. A. Razzaque and learned counsel Mr. S.K. Talukdar, were heard for the petitioners and Mr. P.P. Barua, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent were heard. 5. Learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. D.K. Misra in his first limb of argument submitted that the FIR lodged by the informant Dr. Angshumita Gogoi did not mention the name of the present petitioners and the said FIR was more or less vague and no subsequent FIR was lodged, even though, larger conspiracy has surfaced during investigation and non-filing of FIR is prejudicial to the petitioner in the present case, inasmuch as, the existing vague FIR would enable the prosecution to produce a coloured version or exaggerated account or concocted story during trial. In order to embolden the submission, learned counsel placed reliance on two decision of the Apex Court in Amitabh Anil Ch. Sah Vs. CBI & Others, (2013) 6 SCC 348 and Thulia Kati Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393 . Mr. Misra, submitted that notice was served on the petitioner Pallavi Sarma under Section 41 A CrPC, pursuant to which, she appeared and cooperated with the investigation. Sah Vs. CBI & Others, (2013) 6 SCC 348 and Thulia Kati Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393 . Mr. Misra, submitted that notice was served on the petitioner Pallavi Sarma under Section 41 A CrPC, pursuant to which, she appeared and cooperated with the investigation. However, subsequently, she was arrested without assigning any cogent reason and as such, the arrest of the accused Pallavi Sarma was itself illegal, in view of the provision of Sub-Section (3) of Section 41 A CrPC, which provides that when a person appears and co-operates with the investigation in compliance of notice under section 41 A CrPC, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice, unless for the reasons to be recorded. Mr. Misra submits that no cogent reason has been assigned justifying the arrest of Pallavi Sarma. 6. The next submission of Mr. D.K. Misra referring to a decision of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Another., (2014) 8 SCC 273 was that except the offence under section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act leveled against the petitioners, maximum punishment that could be imposed on the petitioners under all other offences is upto 7 years, and in that view of the matter, the arrest of the petitioners were absolutely unnecessary, as no reason could be made out for their arrest. The contention of the learned Sr. Counsel was that in view of the allegation of conspiracy, to get job by payment of cash, Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be invoked against the petitioners, because at the time of alleged commission of offence, the petitioners were not public servant and to buttress his submission, learned Sr. Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court rendered in State through CBI, New Delhi Vs. Jitendra Kumar Singh, (2014) 11 SCC 724 . The Apex Court observed in the said judgment, that offence under Section 13 of the P.C. Act can be committed only by public servant. 7. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court rendered in State through CBI, New Delhi Vs. Jitendra Kumar Singh, (2014) 11 SCC 724 . The Apex Court observed in the said judgment, that offence under Section 13 of the P.C. Act can be committed only by public servant. 7. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Misra, further submits, that although charge sheets have been filed against the petitioners, till now, cognizance is not taken by the learned trial court nor the trial has commenced for want of sanction or otherwise and as such, there is no point for keeping the petitioners behind the bar, jeopardizing the liberty of the petitioners enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Further contention of Mr. D.K. Misra, learned Sr. Counsel, with regard to the petitioner Pallavi Sarma was that, she being a young woman is also entitled to bail under the proviso to explanation of Section Section 167 (2) CrPC. It was also submitted by Mr. Mishra that the father of the petitioner Pallavi Sarma is a Member of Parliament, who is seriously ill and recently he had undergone kidney transplantation and the petitioner Pallavi Sarma being the only issue of her parents, release of the petitioner Pallavi Sarma is necessary to attend her ailing father. There is no possibility of jumping bail by the petitioners including Pallavi Sarma and Bhargav Phukan, all of whom belong to respected families having deep root in the society and the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition imposed by the Court for bail for ensuring their attendance during trial, submits Mr. Misra. Learned Sr. Counsel also argued for releasing the petitioners on bail heavily relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 8. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel led by Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the petitioner, Manash Pratim Haloi was arrested on 20.02.2018 on the basis of documentary evidence being alleged answer script mentioned in MR No. 334/16, which were seized as back as in the month of November, 2016. However, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner Manash Pratim Haloi by way of third supplementary charge sheet on 19.04.2018. Counsel submitted that the petitioner, Manash Pratim Haloi was arrested on 20.02.2018 on the basis of documentary evidence being alleged answer script mentioned in MR No. 334/16, which were seized as back as in the month of November, 2016. However, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner Manash Pratim Haloi by way of third supplementary charge sheet on 19.04.2018. Thereafter, several supplementary charge sheets have been filed, but none of the charge sheet, subsequent to the 3rd supplementary charge sheet, reflected the name of the petitioner Manash Pratim Haloi nor any fresh evidence was collected by the investigating agency against him. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the documentary evidence sought to be relied against the petitioner, Manash Pratim Haloi is too fragile, inasmuch as, such documentary evidence can hardly be related to the petitioner Manash Pratim Haloi. It is further submitted, that although the charge sheet was filed as back as in the month of April, 2018, neither cognizance was taken against the petitioner till date, nor the trial commenced and the bail was refused only because of the fact that further investigation was going on, though the petitioner has been in custody for more than 6 months. Learned counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerela Vs. Ranuf, (2011) 1 SCC 784 , to submit that delay in trial is a good ground for granting bail. The Apex Court in State of Kerala Vs. Ranuf, having taken note of delay in conclusion of trial granted bail to the accused petitioner, who was in custody for 66 days. Learned counsel also referred to Bihar Fodder Scam in Laloo Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2002) 9 SCC 372, where the Apex Court taking into account the seriousness of the charges and the maximum sentence of imprisonment, that could be imposed, granted bail to the accused petitioner, who was in custody for six months. Mr. Das contended, that there is no material against the petitioner to show that he has done any act prejudicial to the investigation, inasmuch as, prosecution has not been able to produce any cogent materials to show that the petitioner has interfered with the investigation or threatened or influenced any witnesses or tampered with any evidence. Mr. Das contended, that there is no material against the petitioner to show that he has done any act prejudicial to the investigation, inasmuch as, prosecution has not been able to produce any cogent materials to show that the petitioner has interfered with the investigation or threatened or influenced any witnesses or tampered with any evidence. It was also submitted by the learned counsel, that the key conspirators being the Chairman and members of the APSC, who were kingpins in the alleged conspiracy were granted bail. When the key conspirator and the kingpins of the offence are on enlargement, the petitioner Manash Pratim Haloi, who has been in detention for more than 6 months, and the trial court even could not be able to commence the trial, deserves to be release on bail, inasmuch as, indefinite pre-trial detention obviously having punitive effect, runs counter of the basic concept of the criminal jurisprudence of the country, that one has to be presumed innocent, unless his guilt is proved and such detention also violate the fundamental right of the accused, submits Mr. das. 9. Mr. J.I. Barbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Mustafa Ahmed Barbhuiya while adopting the submission made by Mr. D.K. Misra as well as Mr. Das, submits that the petitioner's younger daughter, aged about 3 years has been suffering from serious heart ailment requiring major surgery and therefore, release of the petitioner is necessary for medical treatment of his minor daughter. 10. Learned senior counsel N. Dutta appearing for the petitioner Deepsika Phukan submitted that the petitioner, a highly qualified lady hails from a respectable family will appear and face trial and there is no question of the petitioners jumping bail or influencing any witness. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the rest of the petitioners more or less adopted the basic argument advanced by the learned senior counsel Mr. DK Mishra, Mr. D Das, Mr. N Dutta and Mr. S Das and contended further, that the petitioners also deserve bail on the ground of parity, as some of the similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail by this Court. Medical urgency and family inconvenience have also been cited as additional grounds for bail in respect of some of the petitioners. 12. Mr. D Das, Mr. N Dutta and Mr. S Das and contended further, that the petitioners also deserve bail on the ground of parity, as some of the similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail by this Court. Medical urgency and family inconvenience have also been cited as additional grounds for bail in respect of some of the petitioners. 12. Mr. P.P. Barua, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, resisted the bail application primarily on the ground of seriousness of the offence and apprehension of tampering with evidence as well as influencing the witnesses. Learned Public Prosecutor also strongly resisted the contention of granting bail on the ground of length of detention. It was also contended that detention of the petitioners is necessary in order to find out the money trail, as exchange of huge amount of money book place in the conspiracy of providing job for cash. 13. In view of the above rival submissions of both the sides, question before this court is now, in the words of his Lordship Justice Krishna Iyer is "Bail or Jail"? or Whether the petitioners deserve to be released on bail 14. Before adverting to the question posed as above, it would be apposite to place on record certain undisputed facts revealed from the record and also case diary. The FIR was lodged on 27.10.2016. Charge sheet was filed on 24.01.2017 against 10 accused persons (not petitioners). After filing of the charge sheet, further investigation continued with approval of the court and tenure of further investigation was extended by the courts time to time and 7 (seven) supplementary charge sheets have been filed. The names of the petitioners, Pallavi Sarma, Susovan Das, Moon Mazoomder, Bhargav Phukan, Dipsikha Phukan, Rituraj Neog, Monika Teronpi, Barnali Das, Leena Krishna Kakati, Manzoor Elahi Laskar, Saibur Rahman Barbhuiya and Mustafa Ahmed Barbhuiya appeared in the 6th supplementary charge sheet (14.09.2018), name of Manash Pratim Haloi appeared in the 3rd supplementary charge sheet (19.04.2018) and the name of the petitioner Dihtun Bargayari appeared in the 2nd supplementary charge sheet (04.01.2018). The materials in the case diary and the charge sheets submitted against the petitioners at different point of time revealed that the basic allegation against the petitioners are that the answer scripts written by them were duplicate (not original) and printed in a private press belonging to the relative of the Chairman of the APSC Rakesh Pal in violation of the APSC rule, and there were also anomalies of mismatching of the signature of the invigilators. 15. It is also evident from the submission of the learned counsel that although prosecution sanction has been given for some of the accused persons, still the learned trial court is awaiting prosecution sanction for some of the accused persons and as such, although charge sheet was filed as back as on 24.01.2017 and the investigating agency has been submitting supplementary charge sheets one after another with the extension of time for further investigation, till today, trial court is not in a position even to commence the trial. It is also revealed from the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor and also from the case diary that hundreds of witness have been cited by the prosecution and conclusion of trial would require considerable length of time. Keeping in mind all these facts, let me proceed to the core question. 16. True it is, the Code of Criminal Procedure confers discretion on the court to grant or refuse bail. Such discretion obviously has to be exercised judicially, keeping in view of the well settled principle viz- the object of bail is to secure appearance of the accused in trial and not punitive or preventive as well as the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence of our country with regard to presumption of innocence of the accused unless the guilt is proved, "bail is rule, rejection is exception" punitive effect of pre-trial detention and most importantly the personal liberty or a person vis--vis the social interest and many other factors which may be relevant case to case.. It is also necessary to keeping in mind, that while considering bail of an accused person, the court needs to strike a balance of all relevant factors. It is also necessary to keeping in mind, that while considering bail of an accused person, the court needs to strike a balance of all relevant factors. Though, there cannot be any straight jacket formula and consideration of bail would always depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, it would be beneficial to refer some of the guidelines or factor for consideration of bail, the Apex Court has laid down from time to time. 17. The Apex Court in Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala Vs. State of Gujarat and Others., (2008) 3 SCC 775 dealing with the factors to be looked into while considering application for bail held in paragraph-24 of the judgment as under : "25. This Court in Amarmani Tripathis case had held that while considering the application for bail, what is required to be looked is, (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." 18. In Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. C.B.I., (2013) 7 SCC 466 , the Apex Court observed in paragraph-24 as under: "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. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 19. In Virupakshappa Gouda & Another. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Another., (2017) 5 SCC 406 , the Apex Court observed in paragraph-16 as under: "16. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. and another. The requisite factors are: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and another, it has been opined that while exercising the power for grant of bail, the court has to keep in mind certain circumstances and factors. We may usefully reproduce the said passage:- "9....among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed that the accused had committed the offence. (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." 20. What would appear from the above is that criteria or factors for consideration of bail laid down by the Apex Courts time to time are broadly same or similar. Let us now consider the prayer for bail of the present petitioners in the light of the above factors. 21. With regard to any prima facie case against the petitioners, notwithstanding the submissions made by the learned counsel, that the evidence or material collected by the prosecution are too fragile, this court is of the view, that it would not be proper at this stage to comment on the merit of the case. 21. With regard to any prima facie case against the petitioners, notwithstanding the submissions made by the learned counsel, that the evidence or material collected by the prosecution are too fragile, this court is of the view, that it would not be proper at this stage to comment on the merit of the case. However, since the charge sheets have been filed against all the petitioners with specific accusations and materials, which according to prosecution is sufficient to establish the charges, we shall proceed with the premises that there is prima facie or reasonable ground for believing that the accused persons have committed offence, reason being that, this is not the sole factor for consideration, rather we need to strike a balance of all the factors. Having held so, next consideration on the basis of the rival submission of the parties would be, as to the nature and seriousness of the offence. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Sharad Kumar and Others. Vs. C.B.I., (2012) 1 SCC 65 submits, that one of the prime factor to decide the seriousness and gravity of an offence is the punishment provided for the offence. Out of the various offences alleged against the petitioners in the present case, except the penal provision of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, all other offences are punishable with imprisonment for 7 (seven) years or less than 7 years. As already indicated above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable in case of non-public servant and the maximum punishment under section 13 of P.C Act is also 10 years of imprisonment. Therefore, at best maximum punishment that can be imposed in the present case would be 10 years. 23. Learned Public Prosecutor. Mr. Barua submits that the offence in the instant case is economic offence, which constitute a class apart and needs to be viewed with a different approach because of the socio economic impact of such offence. It is submitted by Mr. Baruah, that Public Service Commission is entrusted with the constitutional duty to hold examination and select suitable and competent candidates to be appointed as administrator and other important job of the State Administration. It is submitted by Mr. Baruah, that Public Service Commission is entrusted with the constitutional duty to hold examination and select suitable and competent candidates to be appointed as administrator and other important job of the State Administration. The criminal conspiracy in the instant case entered into by the Chairman and Member of the APSC with the other accused persons being the candidates, not only deprived the genuine candidates, for their personal gain, but also shattered the trust, reposed on an auspicious constitutional authority, entrusted with the solemn function of holding examination and selecting suitable and proper candidate to run the state administration. In support of his submission learned Addl. PP placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Y.S. Jog Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 , and State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachu Rai, (2017) 13 SCC 751 and in Jag Mohan Reddy's case, the Apex Court, held as under: "Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though there are allegations of taking bribe from the candidate, for providing job, the offence in the instant case cannot be termed as economic offence. However, learned Public Prosecutor tried to resist the above submission referring to paragraph-116 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rakesh Pal Vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 , wherein his Lordships P.C. Pant, J in his dissenting (minority) judgment observed offence of the present case as "an economic offence" Placing reliance on Y.S. Jog Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI and Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that gravity of offence would largely depend upon the severity of punishment, which the conviction will entail and as such, the punishment that could be imposed upon conviction, for an offence, is also a most vital factor to be taken note of, while considering the bail application. The Apex Court observed in Sanjay Chandra case, observed as follows :- ".................................In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor : The other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the Constitutional Rights but rather "recalibration of the scales of justice." 25. In Jog Mohan Reddy's case , the apex Court observed that severity of the punishment which the conviction will entail is one of the vital factor to be kept in mind while granting bail. 26. Learned Public Prosecutor, placing reliance on State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachua Rai, (2017) 13 SCC 751 contended that having regard to the seriousness of the offence, Sanjoy Chandra's case would not apply in the present case. The Apex Court, in Amit Kumar's case, while setting aside the order of bail granted to the petitioner by the High Court, held in paragraph-12 as under: "We are of the considered opinion that the case of Sanjay Chandra, as relied upon by learned counsel for respondent, is distinguishable from the case at hand as the charges in that case carried a maximum punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. In the present case, charge sheet has been submitted, inter alia, for the offences under section 409[4], 465, 467[5], 468, 471, 188, 201, 212 and 120B of Indian Penal Code,1860 and Section 8[6], 9[7], 13 (1)(c)/(d) read with 13(2)[8] of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988[9]. Therefore the case of Sanjay Chandra provides no assistance for the respondent herein." 27. What is apparent from the above paragraph is that the Apex Court distinguished Amit Kumar's case from Sanjay Chandra's case basically on the question of punishment provided for the offence. The Apex Court held that in Amit Kumar's case, the offence alleged was punishable for imprisonment for life and as such Sanjay Chandra's case would not apply in the said case. The Apex Court held that in Amit Kumar's case, the offence alleged was punishable for imprisonment for life and as such Sanjay Chandra's case would not apply in the said case. Evidently offences in the present case are punishable with maximum imprisonment of seven years or at best 10 years, and as such, the contention of the learned P.P. that Sanjan Chandra;s case would not apply in the present case is not acceptable. 28. The Apex Court in Amit Kumar's case, however, considered another important aspect as to the parity of granting bail, which is also a point in this case. While considering the bail of the respondent Amit Kumar, who happened to be the king pin of the crime of Bihar toppers scam case, the Apex Court held that respondent Amit Kumar could not placed in the same pedestal along with other 28 accused, who were granted bail and Amit Kumar could not seek bail on parity along with the other petitioners. Therefore, while considering gravity and seriousness of the offence, besides, the punishment provided for the offence and the seriousness of the offence, the role of different offender is also a factor to be taken note of. In the instant case, the Chairman and members of the PSC, who are at the helm of affairs, hatched conspiracy to recruit persons or provide job for cash, and as such, they were apparently the king pins and key conspirators and as such the Chairman Rakesh Paul and his associates in APSC cannot be placed at par with the candidates, who, allegedly, have obtained job by giving bribes. Though both the classes of the accused persons are liable for the same offences, the role of the present petitioners, who were the candidates, apparently having no criminal background and that of the kingpins of the offence, cannot be equated, while considering the severity of the offence for considering bail. Apparently, Rakesh Paul, the Chairman of the APSC and his associates who were at the helm of affairs of the Public Service Commission and kingpins of the conspiracy, were enlarged on bail and they are still enjoying bail in this case. If this factor is taken into consideration there cannot be any reason to refuse bail to the petitioners on the ground of seriousness of offence. 29. If this factor is taken into consideration there cannot be any reason to refuse bail to the petitioners on the ground of seriousness of offence. 29. Recently a coordinate bench of this Court while dealing with applications for bail of some of the co-accused of the present case, observed that the offence in the present case cannot be termed as heinous offence. I am in agreement with such observation, inasmuch as, the offence of giving bribe and securing job for cash cannot be equated with the heinous offence like murder, dacoity, rape etc. Otherwise also the findings of the coordinate bench is binding on this Court. Having regard to the maximum punishment that can be imposed on the petitioners on conviction, the principle of Sanjay Chandra's case, squarely applies in this case and in my considered view seriousness of the offence on the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be a ground for refusal of bail to the petitioner. 30. It was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that some of the witnesses were threatened and if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may influence the witnesses. Although an objection is taken against the bail and submission is made that witnesses are being threatened or the petitioners are likely to influence the witness, except the submission and a general allegation, the prosecution has not been able to produce any cogent material to substantiate the apprehension, that the petitioners will influence the witnesses or temper with any evidence. It is also to be noted that the prosecution case is mostly dependent on the documentary evidence which are already in the custody of the court. Therefore, in absence of any specific and cogent material, that any of the accused person has threatened any witnesses or influenced any witnesses, bail cannot be denied on mere submission or allegation. In absence of any cogent material, the plea of the prosecution against the bail, that there is apprehension of the petitioners influencing the witnesses or temper with evidence is not tenable. There is no gain saying, that all the petitioners are highly qualified young man and woman and belong to respected family having deep root in the society and none of them has any criminal antecedent and as such, there cannot also be any reasonable apprehension of the petitioner not facing trial or jumping bail. 31. There is no gain saying, that all the petitioners are highly qualified young man and woman and belong to respected family having deep root in the society and none of them has any criminal antecedent and as such, there cannot also be any reasonable apprehension of the petitioner not facing trial or jumping bail. 31. One of the objection raised against the bail of the petitioners is that, their detention is required to find out the money trial as there were exchange of huge money and allegedly the petitioners being the candidates paid huge money as bribe to the Chairman and the other office bearer of the APSC, in order to get through the examination by manipulating the answer scripts. Even if this allegation is accepted for the time being, the money was received by the Chairman Rakesh Paul or his associates in the APSC, who were already granted bail in this case. When the receiver of money were granted bail, it is not understandable how the detention of the petitioners, who allegedly parted with the money in favour of the Chairman and his associates, can help the investigation agency to find out the money trial. This objection also appear to be, untenable. 32. The present petitioners are all candidates who allegedly got job through the APSC examination by manipulating answer scripts by paying money to the Chairman and other members of the APSC. Admittedly, charge sheets were filed against all the petitioners, though according to prosecution further investigation is continuing. It is pertinent to mention that some of the co-accused, who were also candidates, against whom, the allegations are same and charge sheet were filed, have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this court. It has been strongly argued that present petitioners being on the same footing are entitled to bail on the principle of parity. In support of the submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746 . The Apex Court observed as follows: "23. The principle of parity in criminal case is that, where the case of the accused is similar in all respects as that of the co-accused then the benefit extended to one accused should be extended to the co-accused. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746 . The Apex Court observed as follows: "23. The principle of parity in criminal case is that, where the case of the accused is similar in all respects as that of the co-accused then the benefit extended to one accused should be extended to the co-accused. With regard to this principle, it is important to mention the observation of this court in the case of Harbans Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (1982) 2 SCC 101 . In that case it was held, that, in view of commutation of death sentence of one of the accused, who was similarly placed as that of appellant, award of death sentence to appellant was unjustified and, hence, the death sentence of the appellant was stayed till the decision of the President on commutation of sentence." "25. In the case of Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 2 SCC 708 , this Court maintained that as the second accused was placed on the same situation as the appellant, Article 21 of the Constitution would not permit this court to deny the same benefit to the second accused." 33. Evidently, though charge sheet was filed long back followed by as many as seven supplementary charge sheets, against different group of accused and further investigation still continuing. Admittedly, the trial is yet to commence, and the conclusion of trial would obviously take long time as hundreds of witnesses are to be examined. In the above situation, detaining the petitioners in custody for indefinite period, in my humble opinion will not only run counter to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence as to presumption of innocence unless guilt is prove but also violate the right to liberty and also right to fair trial of the petitioners, reason being that an accused would be in better position to prepare his defence remaining free then in confinement. 34. Thus, having considered the whole gamut of the matter including the question of parity, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The only concern now, is to secure their attendance during trial, which can very well be ensured by way of bail and surety. It is therefore provided that the petitioners named above shall be released on executing a bail bond of Rs. The only concern now, is to secure their attendance during trial, which can very well be ensured by way of bail and surety. It is therefore provided that the petitioners named above shall be released on executing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two suitable solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Assam. The bail granted to the petitioners shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. b. They shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court that they may be permitted to be present through the counsel. c. They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case. d. They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear to an affidavit to that effect. e. They would not leave the territorial limits of the trial court without the written permission of the trial court. f. They would report before the trial court and the investigating officer once a month, till the investigation in the case is completed and trial commences. The date of such appearance shall be fixed by the Special Judge or the investigating agency as the case may be. g. The investigating agency/prosecution shall be at liberty to make any application for modification/recalling the order of bail for violation of any condition of bail imposed by this court. 35. All the bail petitions are disposed of. 36. Return the case diary.