Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 111 (UTT)

Sunil Saini v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-02-22

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. The present Applications have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 45 of 2023, registered at police station Kankhal, District Haridwar. 2. The applicant-Sunil Saini is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”), Section 3, Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 (in short “Act, 1998”) (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand) and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “Act, 1988”). 3. The applicant-Sudhir Kumar alias Satish Kumar alias Sushil Kumar is in judicial custody under Section 3, Section 4 of the Act, 1998 and Section 12 of the Act, 1988. 4. The applicant- Bhushan Singh is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC, Section 3, Section 4 of the Act, 1998, Section 7, Section 8 and Section 13 of the Act, 1988. 5. The applicant-Deependra Panwar alias Sonu is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC, Section 9, Section 10 of the Act, 1998, Section 8 and Section 12 of the Act, 1988. 6. The applicant-Manish Kumar is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Section 3, Section 4 of the Act, 1998, Section 7 and Section 8 of the Act, 1988. 7. These five Bail Applications have arisen from one case crime number i.e. Case Crime No. 45 of 2023, therefore, these five Bail Applications are being considered and decided by this common order. Record of the Bail Application No. 666 of 2023 is leading file. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Opposing the bail applications, Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned Special Counsel, submitted that on 12.01.2023, the Inspector-Pradeep Singh Rana received a secret information that several persons were involved in a scam related to paper leak for the post of Patwari/Lekhpal. Thereafter, an FIR (FIR No. 12 of 2023) was registered. During the course of the investigation in FIR No. 12 of 2023, on 22.01.2023, a register was recovered at the instance of Sanjeev Dubey (co-accused). The said register contained the names of those students who were appearing in the Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer examination. Thereafter, an FIR (FIR No. 12 of 2023) was registered. During the course of the investigation in FIR No. 12 of 2023, on 22.01.2023, a register was recovered at the instance of Sanjeev Dubey (co-accused). The said register contained the names of those students who were appearing in the Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer examination. The note books, educational certificates, residence proof, castes certificates, employment certificates and two blank cheques of the students appearing for the AE/JE exam were recovered at the instance of the co-accused Rajpal. Some students were taken to Jose Country, Jwalapur and Laksar and were made to read the examination papers of AE/JE Examination, 2021. From these recoveries and the said information, it was revealed that the AE/JE exam papers were leaked. 10. Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned Special Counsel, further submitted that Rs. 1,20,000/- were recovered from the house of the applicant-Sunil Saini. The applicant-Sudhir Kumar alias Satish Kumar alias Sushil Kumar provided his residence for accommodating the students for being given and solving forthcoming examination question paper. The applicant-Deependra Panwar alias Sonu made Ms. Priyanka transfer Rs. 3,00,000/- in the account of one Ashish Anand from the account of her mother. The applicant-Manish Kumar took money to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the examinee-Rahul Saini. The applicant-Bhushan Singh made multiple copies of the examination paper of JE before the exam. 11. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present matter. There is no cogent evidence on record to connect the applicants with the alleged offence. 12. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate, has submitted that the applicant-Sunil Saini’s marriage took place on 07.12.2022 and he had money for his honeymoon, which was recovered by the police. 13. The applicant-Sunil Saini is in custody since 04.02.2023. Applicant-Sudhir Kumar alias Satish Kumar alias Sushil Kumar is in custody since 14.03.2023. Applicant-Bhushan Singh is in custody since 26.06.2023. Applicant-Manish Kumar is in custody since 13.01.2023 and the applicant- Deependra Singh alias Sonu is in custody since 16.03.2023. 14. The applicants-Sunil Saini, Manish Kumar and Sudhir Kumar alias Satish Kumar alias Sushil Kumar are permanent residents of District Haridwar. The applicant-Deependra Panwar alias Sonu is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar, and, the applicant-Bhushan Singh is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur. Therefore, there is no likelihood of their absconding. 14. The applicants-Sunil Saini, Manish Kumar and Sudhir Kumar alias Satish Kumar alias Sushil Kumar are permanent residents of District Haridwar. The applicant-Deependra Panwar alias Sonu is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar, and, the applicant-Bhushan Singh is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur. Therefore, there is no likelihood of their absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 15. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 16. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicants behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserve bail at this stage. 17. The Bail Applications are allowed. 18. Let the applicants-Sunil Saini, Sudhir Kumar alias Satish Kumar alias Sushil Kumar, Bhushan Singh, Deependra Panwar alias Sonu and Manish Kumar be released on bail on their executing personal bonds and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions: (i) Applicants shall attend the Trial Court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment. (ii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. (iii) Applicants shall not leave the country without previous permission of the Trial Court. 19. It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the prosecution agency will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail. 20. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the connected bail applications.