Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Raj Kumar Cahar for release on bail in a case alleging cheating under IPC and Public Examination Act. Court noted distinction between applicant's daily wage duty and the acts attributed to other named accused.
Applicant Rajkumar Chahar released on bail on his personal bond and two reliable sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22018 of 2022
Applicant :- Raj Kumar Cahar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Mayank Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Sri Abhishek Mayank, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Shekhar, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 08 of 2022, under Sections 420 and 120-B I.P.C. and 3/9 of U.P. Public Examination Act and Section 65/66 of Information Technology Act, P.S. Mahavan, District Mathura.
The aforesaid case arises out of an F.I.R. lodged on 06-01-2022 against four named persons and the applicant has not been named as an accused in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. alleges that during the typing test for selection of R.O./A.R.O in the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad, the four named accused persons were not typing and still on their computers, text was being transcribed automatically. It has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is neither the manager nor a member of the managing committee of the body which manages the examination center, nor is he the care-taker of the examination center and the applicant was engaged on daily wage of Rs. 400/- in invigilation duty to support identity verification of the candidates. It has further been stated that the applicant was taken into custody on 12-04-2022 and his confessional statement was recorded, which was not a voluntarily statement.
Several other co-accused persons, who were not named in the F.I.R. and who have been implicated on the basis of the confessional statements, have been enlarged on bail by this Court. Co-accused Avneesh Kumar and Kuldeep have already been granted bail by this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 8233 of 2022 and 9358 of 2022 vide orders dated 05-05-2022 and 11-05-2022 respectively. The case of the applicant does not appear to be different from the other coaccused persons.
The named accused persons Vijendra Singh, Upendra Singh, Prem Chandra and Veerpal Singh have already been released on bail by means of orders dated 18-05-2022, 26-05-2022 and 27-
05-2022 respectively passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 14028 of 2022, 9958 of 2022, 13048 of 2022 and 10968 of 2022 respectively.
It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 13.04.2022. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the investigation.
The learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the case.
Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for being enlarged on bail pending conclusion of the trial. The bail application is accordingly allowed.
Let the applicant - Rajkumar Chahar be released on bail in Case Crime No. 08 of 2022, under Sections 420 and 120-B I.P.C. and 3/9 of U.P. Public Examination Act and Section 65/66 of Information Technology Act, P.S. Mahavan, District Mathura on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 13.7.2022/pks
Digitally signed by PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.14 13:20:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant whom he claims has been falsely implicated as he was not an accused in the FIR.
Whether there is possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Raj Kumar Cahar
Subhash Vidyarthi
Pankaj Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
