Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 118 (UTT)

Deepak alias Deepak Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-02-23

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. 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. 12 of 2023, registered at police station Kankhal, District Haridwar. 2. These four Bail Applications have arisen from one case crime number i.e. Case Crime No. 12 of 2023, therefore, these four Bail Applications are being considered and decided by this common order. Record of the Bail Application No. 1282 of 2023 is leading file. 3. The applicant- Deepak alias Deepak Kumar is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”), Section 9, Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 (in short, “Act, 1998”) (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand), Section 8 and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, “Act, 1988”). 4. The applicant- Sanjeev Kumar is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Section 3, Section 4 of the Act, 1998 and Section 8 of the Act, 1988. 5. The applicant- Manish Kumar is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC, Sections 3, 4, 9, 10 of the Act, 1998, Section 8 and Section 12 of the Act, 1988. 6. The applicant-Sunil Saini is in judicial custody under Sections 409, 420, 411, 212, 201, 120B IPC, Section 9, Section 10 of the Act, 1998, Section 8 and Section 12 of the Act, 1988. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.01.2023, Pradeep Singh Rana, the Inspector, received a secret information that several persons were involved in a scam related to paper leak for the post of Patwari/Lekhpal. The said examinations were conducted by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 08.01.2023. As per the First Information Report dated 12.01.2023, Rajpal Singh (co-accused) along with Sanjeev Kumar leaked the paper and sold it to the candidates and received money from them. The First Information Report was registered against seven persons. 9. During the course of the investigation, it was found that the applicant-Deepak alias Deepak Kumar along with co-accused Saurabh and Dharmendra purchased a printer and made copies of the question paper. The First Information Report was registered against seven persons. 9. During the course of the investigation, it was found that the applicant-Deepak alias Deepak Kumar along with co-accused Saurabh and Dharmendra purchased a printer and made copies of the question paper. The applicant-Sanjeev Kumar got the examination papers and leaked in a pre-planned conspiracy with the co-accused Sanjeev Chaturvedi, his wife-Ritu (co-accused) and Rajpal (co-accused). The examination papers were leaked and multiple copies were made before the examination by the applicant-Manish Kumar with the help of the co-accused- Sanjeev Chaturvedi, and, Rs. 1,20,000/- were recovered from the house of the applicant-Sunil Saini. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent persons. They have been falsely implicated in the present matter. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that no prima facie evidence has been produced by the respondent against the applicants that could connect them with the alleged offence. The charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. 11. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate has submitted that the marriage of the applicant Sunil Saini was took place on 07.12.2022. He had money for his honeymoon, which was recovered by the police. 12. Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned Special Counsel, has opposed the bail applications. 13. The applicant-Deepak alias Deepak Kumar is in custody since 22.01.2023. The applicant-Sanjeev Kumar is in custody since 18.01.2023. The applicant-Manish Kumar is in custody since 13.01.2023 and the applicant-Sunil Saini is in custody since 03.02.2023. 14. The applicants- Deepak alias Deepak Kumar, Manish Kumar and Sunil Saini are permanent residents of District Haridwar. The applicant- Sanjeev Kumar is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh), 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. 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 – Deepak alias Deepak Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar, Manish Kumar and Sunil Saini 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 the 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.