Allowed

Virender v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Jun 2022CRMPM/1182/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted bail to a 24-year-old petitioner accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy regarding leaked question papers in a police recruitment exam. The Court released him on personal bond with surety, noting similar co-accused were already released, subject to strict non-interference conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furniture of personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount, subject to strict conditions.

Virender Vs State of Hp — Cheating and Forgery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 14^th DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

¶5

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No. 1182 OF 2022

¶6

Between:-

¶7

VIRENDER S/O SH. AMAR CHAND (AGED 24 YEARS OLD) R/O VILLAGE & G.P. JAGHOON, PO KUNHAR, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN [H.P.] MAINTAINING THIS PETITON THROUGH HIS FATHER SH. AMAR CHAND (AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OLD) SINCE THE ACCUSED WAS IN POLICE CUSTODY, [17.05.2022 TO 21.05.2022], NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY FROM 21.05.2022).

¶8

……….PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SH. Y.K. THAKUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, CIVIL SECRETARIAT SHIMNLA EAST-171002.

¶12

.…….RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY M/S SUMESH RAJ, ADARSH SHARMA AND SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR. AMIT KUMAR DHUMAL, DY. AG AND MR MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶14

___________________________________________________________

¶15

Whether approved for reporting? No

¶16

¶17

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court

¶18

passed the following:-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

HC Vivekanand No. 09, IO Police Station Arki, District Solan, HP, present with case record.

¶21

Status report has been filed, which is perused and ordered to be taken on record.

¶22

By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 28 of 2022, dated 17.04.2022, registered at Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 420, 120(B), 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 17.04.2022, a communication was received in the office of Superintendent of Police, Solan, in which a complaint was made with regard to a video, which had gone viral, which pertained to written examination held for recruiting Police Constables in the State on 27.03.2022, in which video, there was a conversation of two candidates with regard to purported fraud which was committed in the course of holding of the said recruitment examination. The crux of the conversation was that a hefty amount of Rs.10.00 Lac was being demanded for making available the question paper of the written examination in issue to the

¶23

¶24

aspiring candidates, which offer was made to many. Further the allegation against the petitioner is that in the course of investigation which was carried out after lodging of the FIR, one accused Raunak Dhankhad disclosed, after identifying the petitioner alongwith other candidates, that the petitioner was taken to Panipat, where he alongwith other candidates was made aware of the questions which were to appear in the question paper and this was done in lieu of an amount of Rs.3.00 Lac having been paid by the petitioner to one Shri Virender Kumar alias Boxer. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 17.05.2022.

¶25

Mr. Y.K. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a 24 years old boy who hails from a humble background. He has submitted that father of the petitioner is a petty contractor and though the petitioner has got himself embroiled in this issue of leak of papers but he is innocent and not guilty of the offences alleged against him. Learned Counsel has further submitted that even otherwise the petitioner is in judicial custody since 21.05.2022 itself, which demonstrates that no recovery etc. is to be made from him. He has further submitted that taking into consideration the peculiarity of the circumstances of the case and further the fact that other accused, similarly situated as the petitioner, stand released by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, the present petition be allowed and the

¶26

¶27

petitioner be ordered to be released on bail and in the event of the Court ordering release of the petitioner, he shall abide by all such terms and conditions that may be imposed.

¶28

Opposing the bail petition, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that taking into consideration the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, it will not be in the interest of justice to release the petitioner on bail because, if released on bail, the petitioner may try to influence the witnesses which may create hurdles in the fair trial of the matter. He has further submitted that the investigation which has been carried out after lodging of the FIR pinpoints the involvement of the petitioner with the commission of the offence for which he has been charged, and thus, there is no merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent. However, on a point of fact, learned Additional Advocate General has not disputed that other co-accused, similarly situated as the petitioner, have been ordered to be released on bail by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P.

¶29

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General. I have also gone through the contents of the petition as well as documents appended therewith and the status report as also other record which has been produced before the Court by the State.

¶30

¶31

The petitioner, as already mentioned hereinabove, is in judicial custody since 21.05.2022. The allegation against the petitioner at this stage is that he was one of the beneficiaries of the leaked question paper pertaining to the written examination conducted for the recruitment of Police Constables in the State of Himachal Pradesh, which process admittedly stands subsequently cancelled by the State. Co-accused, similarly situated as the petitioner, i.e. the candidate against whom the allegation is that she was the beneficiaries of the leaked question paper, has already been ordered to be released on bail, as is evident from the copy of order which has been made available to the Court, by the Court of learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.06.2022, passed in Bail Application No. 59-S/22 of 2022, titled as Priyanka Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as the petitioner is similarly situated as the accused in whose favour learned Sessions Judge, Solan, has been pleased to grant bail, no purpose is going to be served by ordering further detention of the petitioner. As far as the apprehensions pointed out by learned Additional Advocate General are concerned, the same can be and are being taken care of by this Court by imposing strict conditions upon the petitioner while ordering his release on bail.

¶32

¶33

In view of above discussion, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 28 of 2022, dated 17.04.2022, registered at Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 420, 120(B), 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on his furnishing personal bail bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned JMFC within a period of two weeks from today, subject further to the following conditions:-

¶34

Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

¶35

He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.

¶36

He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶37

He shall not leave the territory of this Country.

¶38

It is clarified that findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail petition and learned trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever by any of the

¶39

¶40

findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the course of the trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not complies with any of the conditions, which have been imposed upon him while granting the present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of the bail. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶41

Downloaded copy of this order from the website of this Court, attested by learned Counsel, shall suffice the purpose for furnishing of personal and surety bonds, as directed above, before the learned Court below and there will be no need to produce certified copy of this order in this regard.

Virender v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virender v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akashdeep Singh Vs Administrator, the Mandi Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Ravinder Kumar Vs Ishwar Dass

Ram Saran Vs Hrtc

Reena and Another Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others

Asha Vs Indira Verma and Ors.

New India Assurance Company Vs Sarindra and Ors.