Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 722 (GUJ)

Jayesh Ishwarbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2022-06-06

GITA GOPI

body2022
ORDER : 1. This application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the complaint being FIR No.11209041211735 registered with Prantij Police Station, District : Sabarkantha for offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 120B and 201 of IPC. 2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Devang Nanavati for the applicant submits that the allegation by the prosecution is about the present applicants’ involvement in the paper leak of Gujarat Secondary Service Selection Board Examination, which was scheduled for recruitment to the post of Head Clerk, Class- III. He submits that the applicant came to be arrested since an amount of Rs.19.00 Lacs came to be recovered from his house. Mr. Nanavati submitted that as per the prosecution case, the present applicant is alleged to have procured the copy of paper prior to the examination but as per the prosecution case, the alleged paper was received from Surya Offset Printing Press by Dharmesh, Mangesh, Kanabhai and Rajesh. Mr. Nanavati stated that as per the prosecution case, the paper is alleged to have been procured by the present application through a chain, which started from Mangesh and thereafter, the paper is alleged to be in the possession of Dipak and Deval and from Deval, it is alleged that the copy of question paper came in the hands of the present applicant. Mr. Nanavati stated that the prosecution case suggests that the present applicant had given the copy of the question paper to one Kuldip Patel. Mr. Nanavati further stated that there is no allegation of any money transaction by the present applicant to be construed as sale of question paper to any other accused. He further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the money which was received by Sanjay and Deval were further handed over to the present applicant and thus, Mr. Nanavati submitted that there was no direct transaction of any sale of paper by the applicant. He further submits that the allegation against the applicant is of having approached one witness Kalpesh Dhanjibhai Patel for getting solution of the alleged question paper and to that, Mr. Nanavati submitted that there was no direct transaction of any sale of paper by the applicant. He further submits that the allegation against the applicant is of having approached one witness Kalpesh Dhanjibhai Patel for getting solution of the alleged question paper and to that, Mr. Nanavati submitted that it could not be considered as conclusive proof about the involvement of the present applicant since the witness is a M.A. (Master in Arts), and applicant proposed for solution of the questions which could have been asked in the examination and that itself could not be considered as a crime since the statement of the witness does not suggest that the copy of the original question paper was given to the said witness for solution of the questions. It was, therefore, prayed that the present application may be allowed and the applicant herein may be released on regular bail. 3. Learned APP submits that the present applicant was at the center of money transaction and he had aided the co-accused for the sale of question papers. The present applicant had accompanied Deval, who was his nephew and out of the 10 papers, which were from the Printer of Deval, six papers were sold by the father of Deval and four by the father-in-law. Section 201 IPC has been added since there is destruction of the original question paper. It was, therefore, prayed that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant. 4. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. As per the FIR and the submissions made by the learned advocates, it appears that the copies of the question paper were received by four persons from one Kishore Acharya of Surya Offset Printing Press. The present applicant is alleged to have accompanied Deval and they met Dipak at Vinay Hotel. The allegation is that 10 copies were taken from the Printer of Deval and thereafter, it is alleged to be sold through the father and father-in-law of Deval. The allegation against the present applicant is of recovery of Rs.19 Lacs from his custody, which, from the allegations in the FIR, were received from Sanjay through Deval. The further allegation is that Rs.5 Lacs was received from Mahesh through Jasvantbhai. The allegation against the present applicant is of recovery of Rs.19 Lacs from his custody, which, from the allegations in the FIR, were received from Sanjay through Deval. The further allegation is that Rs.5 Lacs was received from Mahesh through Jasvantbhai. Thus, a total amount of Rs.23 Lacs, is allegedly shown as monetary transaction and some money is shown to be deposited in the bank account of co-accused, which has been freezed by the police. Thus, there is no direct link of sale of question paper by the present applicant. Even the statement of Kalpesh Dhanjibhai Patel does not suggest that the present applicant had come with the copy of the paper alleged to have been leaked. Considering the above aspects and since trial will take its own time to conclude, this Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be exercised in favour of the applicant. 5. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the complaint being FIR No.11209041211735 registered with Prantij Police Station, District : Sabarkantha on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned trial court; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the concerned trial court; 6. The authorities shall adhere to its own Circular relating to COVID-19 and, thereafter, will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. 7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. 7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email forthwith.