Dismissed

Hakam Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Jun 2023BA1/281/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by Hakam Singh Rawat, the High Court of Uttarakhand considered allegations of exam paper leakage and cheating under multiple IPC and state act sections. The court rejected the bail plea, citing the gravity of the offence, corroborated witness statements, and recovery of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is rejected.

Hakam Singh Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

First Bail Application No.281 of 2023

¶3

Hakam Singh Rawat ...Applicant

¶4

Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent

¶5

Present:-

¶6

Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pradeep Upreti, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Special Counsel for the State.

¶7

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶8

Applicant Hakam Singh Rawat is in judicial custody in FIR No. 289 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34, 120B IPC and Section 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

The Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (“the Commission”) was conducting Snatak Pariksha. An information was received that the papers of the examination had already been leaked and certain other information was also received, based on which, an FIR was lodged in the matter against unknown persons on 22.07.2022.

¶11

¶12

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the application would submit that the applicant is innocent, who has been victim of the media publicity. It is argued that, in fact, the Commission has engaged one agency for printing etc. of the examination paper. One of the incharges of that agency Rajesh Chauhan was also arrested in the matter. He has already been granted bail in this FIR and in another FIR, in one case by this Court and in another case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned Senior counsel would submit that, in fact, the agency which was entrusted with the printing etc. of the examination papers and the personnel of the Commission were involved in the case. The applicant has only been made a scapegoat. Nothing was recovered from him during investigation. Charge sheet has already been filed. There is no question of tampering with the evidence or fleeing from justice. The applicant is member of Jila Panchayat; a responsible citizen. Therefore, it is argued that it is a case fit for bail.

¶13

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that various candidates have stated that it is the applicant, who helped them to get the examination papers prior to the examination. It is also argued that, in fact, one piece of paper was recovered at the instance of the

¶14

¶15

applicant in which the applicant has recorded the names of the candidates with the money, which he received from them. The statements of witnesses Jaimala, Sumit Parmar, Meena Rana, Girwar Bhati, Babita and Sudesh Prasad have been referred to alongwith a recovery memo dated 24.08.2022.

¶16

Bail generally is a rule and jail an exception. Various factors are considered at the time of bail, which included gravity of offence, its impact on the society, position of the offender, chances of tampering with the evidence, influencing the witnesses etc.

¶17

It is the case in which the public examination was polluted by leaking the examination paper in advance. Many candidates have told it to the Investigating Officer that, in fact, it is the applicant, who provided the examination paper prior to the examination. He took money also. A piece of paper was also recovered from the applicant giving details of the transactions.

¶18

Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶19

The bail application is rejected.

¶20

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 08.06.2023

¶21

Jitendra

Hakam Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakam Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Mathuresh Kumar Bajpai Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pradeep Kumar Naudiyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Veer Singh Yadav Vs State of Uttarakhand

Devendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mehrum Nisha Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand