Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 350 (HP)

Raj Kumar Rana v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-06-19

ANOOP CHITKARA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Anoop Chitkara, J. 1. The petitioner is a Chancellor of Manav Bharti University/which is a private University constituted under Manav Bharti University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2009, passed by H.F. Legislative Assembly. This University was formed by Manav Bharti Charitable Trust, of which the Petitioner is a Chairman-cum-Trustee. Due to allegations of selling fake Degrees by the University, the petitioner, who is apprehending his imminent arrest on being arraigned as an accused, in FIR number 27 of 2020, dated 8.3.2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, HP, disclosing non-bailable offences, came up before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail. 2. The status report filed. I have heard Counsel for the parties and seen the status reports as well as the police file to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition. The police file returned through the Counsel appearing for the State. 3. The counsel for the petitioner states that the accused had joined the investigation as and when the Investigating Officer so directed. Learned Additional Advocate General did not dispute this averment. 4. FACTS (a) The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is that way back on 16th Aug 2017, the Secretary of Himachal Pradesh Private Education Institutions Regulatory Commission sent a complaint addressed to The Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2, which is reproduced as under: "From the Chairman H.P. Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission, Shimla-9. To The Director General of Police Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. Subject: Issue regarding 103 Degrees/Diplomas issued by Manav Bharti University, Laddo, Sultanpur. Distt. Solan (HP) which were found to be fake on verification. Sir, I am directed to submit that this Commission has been formed with an objective providing a regulatory mechanism in the State and for working as an interface between the State Government and Central Regulatory Bodies for ensuring appropriate standards of admission, teaching examination, research and protection of interest of students in the Private Educational institution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This Commission received a request from the Directorate of Higher Education on 06.01.2017 for verification of 103 degrees diplomas issued by the Manav Bharti University in various disciplines (Copy along with the list of candidates and their particulars as Annexure-I is enclosed for kind perusal). This Commission received a request from the Directorate of Higher Education on 06.01.2017 for verification of 103 degrees diplomas issued by the Manav Bharti University in various disciplines (Copy along with the list of candidates and their particulars as Annexure-I is enclosed for kind perusal). The matter for verification of degrees/diplomas was taken up with the Registrar, Manav Bharti University, Solan vide this office letter No. HPPERC 28 MBU-Vol-III/2016-3813 dated 03.03.2017 (copy enclosed). But the University in its response dated 10.03.2017 denied having issued any documents with respect to these 103 degrees/diplomas (copy enclosed as Annexure-II). Your kind attention is drawn to the fact that from the bare perusal of the degrees/diplomas enclosed it is evident that the same have been issued by Manav Bharti University, Solan. However, from the refusal of issuance of these documents by the University it has questioned the sanctity of these degrees/diplomas. Therefore, there is sufficient incriminating material which shows that the degrees/diplomas in question are not genuine. Hence, a high level investigation is required to be done as it is a serious issue. You are therefore requested to look into the matter and direct a high-ranking officer of your department to investigate the matter in order to reveal the truth behind the issue and thereafter taken action in accordance with law. This Commission will extend all kinds of possible assistance to the investigating officer in the matter. Thanking you. Ends: as above. Yours sincerely Sd/- Secretary". (b) Based on this information, the Police registered the FIR Mentioned above, and the Investigating Officer also searched the premises of Manav Bharti University, Lado, Sultanpur, District Solan. PREVIOUS CRIMINAL HISTORY 5. Neither the bail petition nor the status report refers to any previous criminal history of the bail petitioner. ANALYSIS AND REASONING: 6. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submits that Manav Bharti University is a creation of statute and works as per the Act. He further claims that the petitioner had been just a Chancellor of the University and in fact it is the Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Controller of Examination and other administrative staff of Manav Bharti University, who are responsible for its administrative functioning under the Act. 7. To the contrary, Mr. He further claims that the petitioner had been just a Chancellor of the University and in fact it is the Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Controller of Examination and other administrative staff of Manav Bharti University, who are responsible for its administrative functioning under the Act. 7. To the contrary, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, contended that this University was owned by Manav Bharti Trust which had only three members, one of whom, was the petitioner, another his wife and the third being his father-in-law, who has now expired. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, has shown the record to establish that Mr. Raj Kumar Rana, the petitioner, was the Chairman of the said Trust as well as the Chancellor of the University. Thus, what Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate implies is controverted because of the dual positions of the petitioner. 8. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Ld. Advocate General, contends that the modus Operandi of the petitioner was to sell counterfeit degrees for cash. He states that the possibility of a large number of persons getting jobs by using these fake degrees as genuine cannot be ruled out. For this, the Investigator needs a custodial investigation of Mr. Raj Kumar Rana. 9. Ld. Advocate General further submits that to flatten the curve of Covid-19 disease, there was a Nationwide lockdown that impacted the progress of the investigation. 10. The case file reveals that one Pramod, who worked for Manav Bharti University, after his arrest made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which led to a discovery of a 1500 fake degrees, stamps and other material of Manav Bharti University, Solan, from another unit of the bail Petitioner, at Sirohi, Rajasthan. Prima facie. Raj Kumar Rana, is the wholly Solly of this Sirohi institute. This recovery, prima facie points towards his involvement and participation in the crime. 11. Similarly, the petitioner continued to employ one Krishan Kumar, despite acquiring knowing of fake degrees being prepared and sold under the name of the University, of which he was a Chancellor. It puts the petitioner in the scanner. 12. A perusal of the case file reveals that the persons, who had issued fake Degrees continued to be associated with the university till date in one capacity or the other. It puts the petitioner in the scanner. 12. A perusal of the case file reveals that the persons, who had issued fake Degrees continued to be associated with the university till date in one capacity or the other. On knowing that many allegations of counterfeit Degrees are surfacing, what the petitioner in the position of Head of the University as well as Trust would do is take out the rotten apple. Still, to the contrary, he continued to feed the black sheep. 13. Pre-trial incarceration needs to be justified depending upon the heinous nature of the offence, terms of the sentence prescribed in the Statute for sucha crime, accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, and doing away with witnesses. The Court is under the Constitutional obligation to safeguard the interests of the victim, the accused, the society, and the State. 14. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565 , a Constitutional bench of Supreme Court holds in Para 30, as follows: "It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail." 15. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate, has also made a number of other arguments, but given the fact that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the above-mentioned reasons, discussion of the same, will be an exercise in futility. 16. Any detailed discussions about the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the accused. Suffice it to say that to take the investigation to its logical end, the petitioner is not entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the conscience of this Court is satisfied that the question of grant of bail would arise only when the crucial aspects of the investigation stand completed, and only after the concerned Judicial Magistrate forwards the petitioner to the Judicial Custody. 17. The Bail Petition is dismissed. 18. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 19. 17. The Bail Petition is dismissed. 18. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 19. This Court would fail in its duties by closing its eyes to the magnitude of the scam. Thus, the Secretary Home to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is directed to order Forensic Audit of the affairs of Manav Bharti University, right from its inception to date, if not already ordered. The Court Master/Secretary shall handover an authenticated copy of this order to the Counsel for the Petitioner, and to the Learned Advocate General, if they ask for the same.