Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 315 (HP)

Parmod Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-06-05

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The petition is taken up through video conference. 2. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 27 of 2020, dated 08.03.2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. 3. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 4. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 08.03.2020 police received a written application for registration of a case and the said application was addressed to the Director General of police Himachal Pradesh, Shimla from Secretary Himachal Pradesh Private Education Institutions Regulatory Commission, Shimla, through Chairman H.P. Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission, Shimla. It is contended in the application that the Commission received a request from Directorate of Higher Education for verification of 103 degrees/diplomas issued by Manav Bharti University (hereinafter referred to as MBU) and the MBU denied having issued such degrees/diplomas, thus the degrees/diplomas were found fake. A request in the application was made to the police to look into the matter. Upon the complaint, so made by the Commission, police registered a case and the investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, police arrested accused Munish Goel and Anupam Thakur and for further investigation a police team was constituted for arresting Sarika, Parmod Kumar (petitioner herein), Dhruv etc., who were allegedly involved in preparing the fake degrees/diplomas. On 10.03.2020 the petitioner was arrested from Karnal and during interrogation he divulged that he remained as Data Entry Operator in MBU, PMCI Dayal Singh Colony, Karnal, Haryana, during the period 2011 to 2014. He further disclosed that at Karnal Centre one Sarika was also posted and during 2014, on being asked by Raj Kumar Rana, they came to MBU, Solan, where they started preparing fake degrees. As per the petitioner, in a room of 4th floor of MBU building at Solan, record and paraphernalia qua fake degrees was available, which was shifted to Madhav University, Rajasthan. As per the petitioner, in a room of 4th floor of MBU building at Solan, record and paraphernalia qua fake degrees was available, which was shifted to Madhav University, Rajasthan. The petitioner, through video calling, got recovered 1376 degrees and DMCs, 30 diplomas, 485 blank letter heads, 319 blank DMCs, 50 migration certificates, 199 envelops, 2 CPUs, 2 monitors, 2 mouses, 2 keyboards, 1 UPS and other documents. Police also seized transportation records. Forensic analysis of the seized material reveals that many fake degrees have been prepared. Investigation further reveals that in the racket of fake degrees the petitioner played an active role. Due to the prevailing pandemic of Novel Corona Virus the investigation is sluggish. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the crime. In case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, as he is resident of Haryana and a very clever person, so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. It has been argued that the main kingpin, Raj Kumar Rana, has absconded and the petitioner merely used to work in the University. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when nothing is to be recovered from him and also in the wake of the fact that he is ready and willing to join and co-operate in the investigation. It has been further argued that the all the allegations, as emanate from the records, are against Raj Kumar Rana, and petitioner has nothing to do with the same, so the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. It has been further argued that the all the allegations, as emanate from the records, are against Raj Kumar Rana, and petitioner has nothing to do with the same, so the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found to be accomplice in a grievous crime and the investigation reveals that he has played an active role in the commission of the crime. He has further argued that in case, at this stage, in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application may be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when nothing is to be recovered from him and in the wake of the facts that he was merely working in the University and cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the manner in which offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, also considering the fact that investigation is sluggish due to pandemic of Novel Corona Virus, so the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars till the investigation is complete, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police and in case the petitioner is required to be interrogated or associated in the investigation, he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, and also considering the fact that accused Munish Goel and Anupam Thakur have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, so this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police in case FIR No. 27 of 2020, dated 08.03.2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. (iv) That the petitioner will not personally or through their agents/representatives visit Manav Bharti University, Solan, or any other office or institution run/managed/controlled by Raj Kumar Rana or any of his family members. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.