Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC3 Aug 2021Bail Appln./1470/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected a bail application filed by an applicant accused of impersonating candidates in competitive examinations. The court held that the applicant failed to establish a valid case for bail, noting differences in roles among accused and the serious nature of the offence involving impersonation.

What did the court decide?

Bail application stands rejected.

Pradeep Kumar Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010100262021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./1470/2021

¶5

PRADEEP KUMAR

¶6

SON OF SRI SOHAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO, 63, VED HATI, BERSARAI, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI-110016

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 03-08-2021

¶14

Heard Shri D Das, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, namely, Sri Pradeep Kumar, who has filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr.PC praying for bail in connection with Police Report Case No. 25/2021 under Sections 120(B)/419/420/406 of the IPC, read with Section 66 (D) of the IT Act, 2005, pending in the Court of the learned SDJM (I), Kamrup (M), Guwahati arising out of Azara PS Case No. 624/2020 under Section 120(B)/419/420/406 of the IPC, read with Section 66 (D) of the IT Act and Charge Sheet

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

No.117/2020, dated 31.12.2020.

¶17

Also heard Shri R Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

¶18

Photo copy of the case records have also been received which have been carefully examined.

¶19

At the outset, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has fairly submitted that this Court on an earlier occasion had rejected the bail application of the applicant, being BA/697/2021, vide order dated 31.05.2021.

¶20

Shri Das, learned Senior Counsel by drawing the attention of this Court to the earlier rejection order submits that the principal reason for rejection, as would be evident from a reading of the order itself, was a submission made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that three key persons were yet to be arrested. However, by referring to the charge sheet dated 31.12.2020, it is submitted that the aforesaid contention was an incorrect one, as the charge sheet would reveal that two persons, namely, the petitioner and Shri Bhargav Deka were in custody and five others, including the prime accused, namely, Neel Nakshatra Das were released on bail on 23.11.2020.

¶21

The learned Senior Counsel has also taken the plea of parity by citing the example of the other accused who have been granted bail, including Shri Bhargav Deka, who was granted bail vide order dated 12.03.2021 by this Court. In support of his aforesaid contention of parity, Shri Das has placed reliance on the following citations:

¶22

1. Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2005) 7 SCC 226;

¶23

Utpal Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2018) SSC Online Gau 1450; and

¶24

Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 746.

¶25

As regards the fact that the domicile of the applicant in outside the State of Assam, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the same should not stand in the way of grant of bail, in case, the applicant is otherwise able to make out a case. In this regard, Shri Das,

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the case of Sanjay @ Bablu @ Keja Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 403.

¶28

In said case of Sanjay @ Bablu @ Keja Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), the accused was a domicile of Allahabad whereas the offence was committed in the State of Gujarat. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allayed the apprehension of misuse of bail on that count, however, with a rider that the accused could, otherwise, make out a case of grant of bail.

¶29

On the other hand, Shri Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by opposing the bail application has contended that no new grounds have been pleaded in the present application and on that count alone, the application is liable to be rejected. By refuting the contention that incorrect submissions were made on behalf of the State while considering the bail of the applicant on the earlier occasion, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by this Court in the case of another accused, namely, Shri Bhargav Deka. In the said order, this Court itself had recorded the possibility of filing supplementary charge sheet as three more persons were arrested.

¶30

It is further submitted on behalf of the State that most of the bails were default bail which were granted by the learned courts below and the applicant could be arrested only towards the end of the investigation.

¶31

By refuting the plea of parity, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that when most of the accused persons were granted default bail, the question of parity would not arise at all. So far as the bail orders granted on merits are concerned, it would appear therefrom that the concept of parity would not arise. It is further submitted that all the accused have independent role and are of different categories. It is submitted that the present applicant is a professional, who runs a coaching centre at Delhi and he cannot be equated with the other accused, especially, the beneficiary, who is a student of about 18 years.

¶32

Page No.# 4/5

¶33

The rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

¶34

Let us first deal with the objection regarding lack of fresh grounds in filing successive bail application after rejection of the earlier one. Though the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor may be correct in making that contention, the length of detention is itself a ground for consideration of a prayer for bail and therefore, this Court would embark upon the merits of the case.

¶35

The applicant has tried to make out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity. No doubt, parity can be a good ground for such consideration, but what is required to be seen is whether the accused persons meet the requirement of parity. In other words, whether their respective roles in commission of the offence are ‘at par’. In the instant case, each of the accused are charged with certain acts exclusively done by them. The accused, Neel Nakshatra, who is the beneficiary of the impersonation, is a student of about 18 years of age, his parents were the one, against whom the allegation of arranging for the impersonation is there and the parents were granted default bail. The other accused persons are all working at different organizations/places and it appears that after a thorough conspiracy, the impersonation could be done by manipulating at various stages.

¶36

The case law cited on parity are seen to be based to be on particular facts and circumstances connected to the said cases and in any event, there cannot be any precedent in criminal jurisprudence where each case has to be decided on the basis of the respective facts and circumstances.

¶37

The fact that the accused-applicant is not a resident of this State is no doubt a relevant factor but will not play much of a role in deciding the present application of his bail. This Court is in humble agreement with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the aforesaid fact of domicile would not come into play if the accused, otherwise, makes out a case for grant of bail. This Court in its earlier order dated 31.05.2021 had observed that the present case is of a unique and serious nature which is almost unheard of in the State of

¶38

Page No.# 5/5

¶39

Assam where impersonation of candidates sitting for competitive examination has been done by manipulation at various levels.

¶40

Since the present consideration is only on the prayer for bail, this Court refrains from making any further observation regarding the role and the conduct of the applicant which have been recorded in the charge sheet.

¶41

Thus, keeping all the aforesaid relevant aspects into account, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail.

¶42

Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.

¶43

Return the photo copy of the case records to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor,

¶44

Assam forthwith.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Pradeep Kumar v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramila Rani Brahma Vs the State of Assam

Parth Bajaj Vs the State of Assam

Bhavya Agarwal Vs the State of Assam

Nazrul Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Debananda Paul Vs the Union of India

Karna Dhar Das Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.